The opinion
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)