Azubuko v. Bell Natl Org (3rd Cir. 2007)

Federal Circuits, 3rd Cir. (August 01, 2007)

Docket number: 07-1687

Not Precedential
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/azubuko-v-bell-natl-org-29797441
Id. vLex: VLEX-29797441

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Ellen v. Spain, Appellant, v. Tony E. Gallegos, Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; United States of America., 26 F.3d 439 (3rd Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Coltec Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Four Leaf Coal Company, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation; L.G. Wasson Coal Mining Corp., an Indiana Corporation, Appellants, v. William P. Hobgood; Michael H. Holland; Marty Hudson; Thomas O.S. Rand; Elliot A. Segal; Carlton R. Sickles; Gail R. Wilensky, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Fund; United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Trust; United States of America, Intervenor in D.C. Coltec Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Four Leaf Coal Company, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation; L.G. Wasson Coal Mining Corp., an Indiana Corporation, v. William P. Hobgood; Michael H. Holland; Marty Hudson; Thomas O.S. Rand; Elliot A. Segal; Carlton R. Sickles; Gail R. Wilensky, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Find; United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund; United States of America, Intervenor in D.C., Coltec Industries, Inc., Appellant., 280 F.3d 262 (3rd Cir. 2002)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Lefteri Poulis and Athena Poulis, His Wife, Appellants, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company., 747 F.2d 863 (3rd Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Walter M. Guyer, Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. Beard, Appellee., 907 F.2d 1424 (3rd Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,939 Eugene Landon; Hershel Chadek; Cyril Moyer; Martin Campbell v. A. Bruce Hunt, Iii; Carol J. Hunt Eugene Landon; Hershel Chadek; Cyril Moyer; Martin Campbell; and Their Counsel, Allen E. Ertel and John A. Felix, Appellants., 977 F.2d 829 (3rd Cir. 1992) 939 Eugene Landon; Hershel Chadek; Cyril Moyer; Martin Campbell v. A. Bruce Hunt, Iii; Carol J. Hunt Eugene Landon; Hershel Chadek; Cyril Moyer; Martin Campbell; and Their Counsel, Allen E. Ertel and John A. Felix, Appellants.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Richard J. Mayberry, Appellant, v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Appellee., 529 F.2d 332 (3rd Cir. 1976)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

DLD-305 N O T PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT

N O . 07-1687

C H U K W U M A E. AZUBUKO,

Appellant

v. B E L L NATIONAL ORGANIZATION;

J A Q U E L IN E SEDGERICK, IN INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;

M A U R IC E NOBLES, IN INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY

O n Appeal From the United States District Court

F o r the District of New Jersey

(D .C . Civ. No. 05-cv-05647)

D is tric t Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

S u b m itte d For Possible Dismissal Under 28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

o r Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

J u ly 19, 2007

B E F O R E : BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

(F ile d : August 1, 2007

O P IN IO N

P E R CURIAM

T h is is an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of Chukwuma Azubuko's c o m p la in t. For the following reasons, we will dismiss this appeal. See 28U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

O n December 1, 2005, Azubuko initiated this action by filing a complaint. On J a n u a ry 10, the District Court issued an order finding the complaint deficient, inter alia, f o r failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court directed A z u b u k o to file an amended complaint by January 24 or the matter would be dismissed.

On January 18, Azubuko filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order; he failed, h o w e v e r, to file an amended complaint. On February 9, well after the imposed deadline, th e court dismissed the complaint. Azubuko filed a motion for reconsideration which the c o u rt denied on July 5, 2006. On January 8, 2007, Azubuko filed a motion to reopen his ca se under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On February 13, the District Court d en ied the motion. Azubuko filed a timely notice of appeal from that order.

W e review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See C o lte c Indus. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 269 (3d Cir. 2002). Rule 60(b) "provides for e x tra o rd in a ry relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional c irc u m s ta n c es ." Mayberry v. Maroney, 529 F.2d 332, 335 (3d Cir. 1976). The District C o u rt's dismissal of Azubuko's suit was entirely appropriate. A district court has the a u th o rity to dismiss a suit sua sponte for failure to prosecute by virtue of its inherent p o w e rs and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 3 7 0 U.S. 626 , 630-31 (1962). Such a dismissal is deemed to be an adjudication on the m e rits , barring any further action between the parties. See Landon v. Hunt, 977 F.2d 829, 8 3 3 (3d Cir. 1992). Ordinarily a district court is required to consider and balance six fa ctors enumerated in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1 9 8 4 ), when deciding, sua sponte, to use dismissal as a sanction. When a litigant's c o n d u c t makes adjudication of the case impossible, however, such balancing under Poulis is unnecessary. See Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1990); see also S p a in v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454-55 (3d Cir. 1994). We find that this is such a case, as A z u b u k o ' s initial filing provided no basis for the district court to proceed with his case n o r for an opposing party to respond to his allegations. Azubuko then failed to comply w ith an explicit order to make his allegations plain by filing an amended complaint. Such f a c ts warranted the sanction of the District Court's dismissal.

In sum, because Azubuko's appeal lacks arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it p u rsua n t to 28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).