Michael Ondish, Sr. v. Melissa Hainesworth, Superintendent, S.C.I. Laurel...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL ONDISH, SR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:24-101 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer MELISSA HAINESWORTH, ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto SUPERINTENDENT, S.CI. LAUREL ) HIGHLANDS, et al., ) ) Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2026, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on May 20, 2024, (Docket No. 2), recommending that the § 2254 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Michael Ondish, Sr. against Melissa Hainesworth, Superintendent S.C.I. Laurel Highlands et al. be denied as he challenged the alleged denial of a timely and fair parole hearing and his claims were subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as they were more appropriately brought as a civil rights complaint and alternatively should be denied to the extent that they sought habeas relief as the claims are without merit, and further directed that objections were due in 14 days such that objections from non-ECF users were due on June 6, 2024, the timely Objections filed by Petitioner on June 3, 2024, (Docket No. 3), the matter having been reassigned to the undersigned for prompt disposition, and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of May 20, 2024, (Docket No. 2), which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, as supplemented herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections [3] are OVERRULED. To that end, Petitioner alleges that his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated because the Parole Board stated in its 2021 denial that he would receive parole review in two years but did not do so in his case and that he was denied a fair parole review as a result. (Docket No. 3). However, Petitioner subsequently filed another § 2254 habeas petition at Civil A. No. 3:25-64 challenging the denial of parole in December of 2024 and this Court denied the Petition in an Order issued on January 26, 2026. See Ondish v. Hainesworth, No. CV 3:25-64, 2026 WL 191713, at *1 (W.D.

Pa. Jan. 26, 2026) (holding that Petitioner “has failed to show that the denial of parole was a result of a violation of his Constitutional rights as he has not established that the Parole Board relied upon impermissible factors and this Court is not permitted to second guess the Parole Board’s decisions or factual findings in reviewing a habeas petition.”). Hence, the Petition must be denied, as moot; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 2) is DENIED, as moot; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a Constitutional right; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED; and, FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer Senior U.S. District Judge cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto cc: MICHAEL A. ONDISH, SR. JZ8491 SCI LAUREL HIGHLANDS 5706 Glades Pike P.O. Box 631 Somerset, PA 15501 (via first class mail)