Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01674/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01674-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

DLD-005 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-1674

____________

COREY BRACEY,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; ANDREA MEINTEL, Director Bureau

of Treatment Services; RICHARD ELLERS, Director of

Bureau of Healthcare; J. BARRY JOHNSON, Deputy

Secretary for Western Region; SUPERINTENDENT

FAYETTE SCI; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT

FACILITY MANAGEMENT GATES; DEPUTY

SUPERINTENDENT CENTRALIZED SERVICES

ARNELL; MAJOR MICHAEL ZAKEN; CARL 

WALKER, Unit Manager; COUNSELOR BUSTASS; 

CAPTAIN SUSAN BERRIER; DEPUTY 

SUPERINTENDENT CENTRALIZED SERVICES 

BRYANT; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FACILITY 

MANAGEMENT HALL; CORRECTIONS 

CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM MANAGER WOODS;

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FACILITY MANAGEMENT 

HANNAH; CORRECTIONS CLASSIFICATION 

PROGRAM MANAGER BISER; SUPERINTENDENT 

SMITHFIELD SCI; DR. SAVAADRA; DR. FONDER; 

MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC.; DR. 

GALLUCCI; WILLIAM LEGGET, Captain DSFM

WHIETSEL; SHIRLEY MOORE-SMEAL; KATHLEEN

GNALL, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR RE-ENTRY AND

SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SERVICES

__________________________________ 

Case: 15-1674 Document: 003112136240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2015
2

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 1-11-cv-00217)

District Judge: Cathy Bissoon

__________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

or Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

October 2, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 20, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Corey Bracey appeals from an order of the District Court denying his 

motion for a final order. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

Bracey, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a civil rights action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against 

certain Department of Corrections officials and various health care employees at four 

different correctional institutions, alleging that the manner in which prisoners with mental 

health issues are housed in the Restricted Housing Unit, his confinement in a continuouscamera observation cell, and his classification on the Restricted Release List, violated his 

constitutional rights. The defendants, in two groups -- the Commonwealth Defendants 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 

Case: 15-1674 Document: 003112136240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2015
3

and the Medical Defendants -- moved for summary judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

Bracey opposed the motions. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation, 

in which she recommended that the defendants’ motions be granted. In an order entered 

on September 17, 2014, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants. 

Judgment was entered on that same day. 

Bracey placed a notice of appeal in the prison mailbox system, resulting in a 

timely appeal docketed at C.A. No. 14-4248, but because it appeared that the claims 

against Commonwealth defendant Shirley Moore-Smeal may not have been resolved, our 

Clerk advised Bracey that his appeal might be subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (order entered by District Court that determines rights and 

liabilities of fewer than all of the parties is not immediately appealable unless the District 

Court directs entry of final judgment as to the parties). Bracey was invited to submit a 

response to the question of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, he did not either pay the appellate 

docketing fees or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For this reason, the 

appeal was procedurally terminated by our Clerk on December 10, 2014 for failure to 

prosecute insofar as Bracey had failed to pay the requisite fee, see Fed. R. App. P. 3(a); 

3rd Cir. LAR 3.3 and Misc. 107.1(a). 

On December 17, 2014, and thus after his appeal of the District Court’s summary 

judgment decision was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fees, Bracey filed a motion 

in the District Court for a final order pursuant to Rule 54(b), or, in the alternative, for a 

trial on his claims against Moore-Smeal. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion as 

unnecessary, concluding that it was clear from the totality of the Report and 

Case: 15-1674 Document: 003112136240 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/20/2015
4

Recommendation that the claims brought against Moore-Smeal were addressed and 

disposed of, even though Moore-Smeal’s name was inadvertently omitted from the list of 

Commonwealth defendants for whom summary judgment was being recommended in the 

Conclusion of the Report and Recommendation. Bracey appealed the Magistrate Judge’s 

order to the District Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In an order entered on 

February 11, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge and denied the 

motion for a final order, again, in effect, as unnecessary because the claims against 

Moore-Smeal had been disposed of by the Court’s original order awarding summary 

judgment to the Commonwealth defendants.

Bracey placed a notice of appeal from this order in the prison mailbox system, 

resulting in the instant timely appeal. He then moved for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis and this motion was granted. Bracey was advised that the appeal was subject to 

summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary action under Third Cir. 

LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The appellees have moved to quash the appeal, and Bracey 

has submitted two responses, in which he has argued, in pertinent part, that he abandoned 

his original appeal docketed at C.A. No. 14-4248 due to a good faith belief that it was 

jurisdictionally defective and because he could not afford to pay for a jurisdictionally 

defective appeal. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s order 

denying Bracey’s post-judgment motion for a final order. See Isidor Paiewonsky, Inc. v. 

Sharp Properties, Inc., 998 F.2d 145, 149-50 (3d Cir. 1993) (post-judgment orders are 

final and immediately appealable). As a threshold matter, we emphasize that the scope of 

Case: 15-1674 Document: 003112136240 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/20/2015
5

this appeal is limited to review of the District Court’s order denying Bracey’s motion for 

a final order. Bracey’s appeal of the District Court’s order awarding summary judgment 

to the defendants, C.A. No. 14-4248, was dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial 

question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The 

Commonwealth’s attorney entered an appearance on behalf of Moore-Smeal, and, as 

noted by the Magistrate Judge, a review of the pleadings, the totality of the summary 

judgment motion, and the reasoning in the Report and Recommendation lead inescapably 

to the conclusion that the District Court’s order entered on September 17, 2014 granting 

summary judgment to the defendants necessarily included Moore-Smeal. It thus was a 

final order as to all claims and all parties, making Bracey’s motion for a final order 

unnecessary. We would add that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of the 

Commonwealth defendants plainly included Moore-Smeal, even though she was 

inadvertently omitted from the list of specific defendants set forth in the motion. In sum, 

Bracey’s motion for a final order was unnecessary and thus properly denied by the 

District Court.

With regard to the appeal that was dismissed, an appellant who seeks to correct a 

deficiency after the appeal is dismissed and to reopen the appeal must have this Court’s 

approval. LAR Misc. 107.2. He must file a motion to reopen the appeal and the motion 

must be justified by a showing of good cause. Id. If the motion to reopen is not filed 

within 10 days of dismissal, it must be accompanied by a request to be exempt from the 

timeliness requirement, and the motion must also be accompanied by, in Bracey’s case, 

Case: 15-1674 Document: 003112136240 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/20/2015
6

either the appellate docketing fees or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Bracey has 

taken none of these steps to reopen his appeal docketed at C.A. No. 14-4248 but he may 

still do so, and, in his motion to reopen, he may present his argument that he abandoned 

his original appeal due to a good faith belief that it was jurisdictionally defective. We 

express no view on the outcome of any such motion to reopen the appeal, and we caution 

Bracey that, if he is successful in reopening his appeal, it will result in an additional 

assessment of fees.

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court 

denying Bracey’s motion for a final order. The appellees’ motion to quash the appeal is 

denied.

Case: 15-1674 Document: 003112136240 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/20/2015