Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case involving Marc Antwain X. Rivers Muhammad appealing the dismissal of claims related to the termination of his parental rights. The District Court had previously dismissed Muhammad's complaints and amended complaint against Luzerne County Children and Youth Services for failing to state a claim. Muhammad later filed a motion under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case, arguing that LCCYS was improperly granted immunity. The District Court denied the motion and struck Muhammad's untimely supporting brief. The appeals court affirmed, finding that Muhammad did not demonstrate legal error or present grounds for Rule 60(b) relief such as new evidence or exceptional circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    25 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a court case involving Marc Antwain X. Rivers Muhammad appealing the dismissal of claims related to the termination of his parental rights. The District Court had previously dismissed Muhammad's complaints and amended complaint against Luzerne County Children and Youth Services for failing to state a claim. Muhammad later filed a motion under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case, arguing that LCCYS was improperly granted immunity. The District Court denied the motion and struck Muhammad's untimely supporting brief. The appeals court affirmed, finding that Muhammad did not demonstrate legal error or present grounds for Rule 60(b) relief such as new evidence or exceptional circumstances.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-08-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1380

    Original Title

    Marc Antwain Muhammad v. Vincent Cappellini, 3rd Cir. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case involving Marc Antwain X. Rivers Muhammad appealing the dismissal of claims related to the termination of his parental rights. The District Court had previously dismissed Muhammad's complaints and amended complaint against Luzerne County Children and Youth Services for failing to state a claim. Muhammad later filed a motion under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case, arguing that LCCYS was improperly granted immunity. The District Court denied the motion and struck Muhammad's untimely supporting brief. The appeals court affirmed, finding that Muhammad did not demonstrate legal error or present grounds for Rule 60(b) relief such as new evidence or exceptional circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    25 views4 pages

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case involving Marc Antwain X. Rivers Muhammad appealing the dismissal of claims related to the termination of his parental rights. The District Court had previously dismissed Muhammad's complaints and amended complaint against Luzerne County Children and Youth Services for failing to state a claim. Muhammad later filed a motion under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case, arguing that LCCYS was improperly granted immunity. The District Court denied the motion and struck Muhammad's untimely supporting brief. The appeals court affirmed, finding that Muhammad did not demonstrate legal error or present grounds for Rule 60(b) relief such as new evidence or exceptional circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    PS4-155

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 14-1380
    ___________
    MARC ANTWAIN X. RIVERS MUHAMMAD, SR.,
    Appellant
    v.

    VINCENT CAPPELLINI, Court Appointed Counsel;


    LUZERNE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES ORPHANS COURT;
    LUZERNE COUNTY COURT COMMON PLEAS ORPHANS COURT;
    SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA;
    JOHN A. BELLINO, Guardian ad Litem; GERRY LYNN BUTLER, Case Worker;
    THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-02374)
    District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    August 1, 2014
    Before: HARDIMAN, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: August 7, 2014)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    In November 2010, Marc Antwain X. Rivers Muhammad, Sr., filed a pro se
    complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

    alleging various constitutional violations in connection with the termination of his


    parental rights in the Orphans Court Division of the Luzerne County Court of Common
    Pleas (LCCCP). Among the defendants was the Luzerne County Children and Youth
    Services (LCCYS). The District Court dismissed the complaint. In regards to LCCYS,
    the District Court ruled that Muhammad had failed to state a claim. The District Court
    nonetheless allowed Muhammad to amend his complaint, noting, inter alia, that a
    conspiracy claim against LCCYS could be plausible if supported by more particular facts.
    Muhammad filed an amended complaint, which the District Court also dismissed.
    In relation to the conspiracy claim against LCCYS, the District Court ruled that he failed
    to plead enough facts to state a plausible claim for conspiracy. Upon review, we affirmed
    the District Courts judgment. See Muhammad v. Cappellini, 477 F. Appx 935 (3d Cir.
    2012).
    After his appeal, Muhammad returned to the District Court with a Motion for
    Federal Injunctive Relief & Damages Pursuant to 1983 raising new claims against the
    LCCCP, a former LCCCP judge, and Pennsylvania Superior Court judges in connection
    with the LCCCP proceedings. The District Court construed the motion (with its demand
    for custody of his son and $50 million in damages) as a new complaint, reviewed it
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(2), and dismissed the claims raised therein on immunity
    grounds. We again affirmed the District Court. See Muhammad v. Cappellini, 532 F.
    Appx 127 (3d Cir. 2013).

    Subsequently, on October 1, 2013, Muhammad again returned to the District


    Court, filing a Motion for Federal Injunctive Relief and Damages under 42 U.S.C.A.
    1983 pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Citing Rule
    60(b)(6), he sought reopening. He argued that his parental rights were improperly
    terminated by LCCYS and claimed that immunity was improperly granted to LCCYS by
    the District Court. In his motion, he made an offer of settlement to the LCCYS, namely
    custody of his son and $100 million in damages. On December 31, 2013, Muhammad
    submitted a brief in support of his motion.
    The District Court ordered Muhammads brief stricken from the docket as
    untimely filed and denied his motion. Muhammad appeals. In his brief, he repeats his
    argument that LCCYS is not entitled to immunity. He also presents arguments about
    why he believes he is entitled to custody of his son.
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Torres v. Carter, 125 F.3d 166,
    167-68 (ed Cir. 1997).
    Despite the allusion to preliminary injunctive relief in its title, Muhammads
    motion was a motion to reopen under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
    See United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 287-88 (3d Cir. 2003) (explaining that the
    content of a motion, not its title, controls). Generally, we review orders denying Rule
    60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244,
    251 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2008) (explaining also that we exercise plenary review over orders
    granting or denying relief under Rule 60(b)(4)). An appeal from the denial of Rule 60(b)
    3

    relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review. See Browder v. Dir., Dept
    of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). Also, we review how a district court controls its
    docket for abuse of discretion. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817
    (3d Cir. 1982). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Erie
    Telecomms., Inc. v. City of Erie, 853 F.2d 1084, 1089 n.10 (3d Cir. 1988).
    Upon review, we will affirm the District Courts order. Muhammad claimed legal
    error, but legal error, without more, cannot justify granting a Rule 60(b) motion. Smith
    v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1988). Furthermore, his claim of legal error was
    based on a misapprehension of the District Courts rulings. The complaint and amended
    complaint against LCCYS were dismissed for failure to state a claim, not on the basis of
    immunity. Furthermore, Muhammad did not otherwise present a basis for relief under
    Rule 60(b). He did not put before the District Court material new evidence that could not
    have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence. See Compass Tech., Inc. v.
    Tseng Labs,, Inc., 71 F.3d 1125, 1130 (3d Cir. 1995). He also did not make the
    necessary showing of exceptional circumstances to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
    See Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002). Lastly, it was
    within the District Courts sound discretion to strike Muhammads late-filed brief from
    the docket.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy