Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03070/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Inmate Employment Worker
Not Party
Long
Appellee
Ronald Pruden
Appellant

Document Text:

AMENDED DLD-44 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3070

___________

RONALD PRUDEN,

 Appellant

v.

DOCTOR LONG;

INMATE EMPLOYMENT WORKER,

name unknown at SCI Smithfield

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-02007)

District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo 

____________________________________

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

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

November 8, 2007

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 27, 2008)

_________

 OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Ronald Pruden, appeals from the order of the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his post-judgment motion as

Case: 07-3070 Document: 0031545910 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2008
 We note that Pruden’s notice of appeal, filed on July 11, 2007, is untimely as to 1

the District Court’s order entered on March 28, 2007, dismissing his complaint. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

moot. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

On October 12, 2006, Pruden filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted as unopposed. 

Approximately three months later, Pruden filed a motion requesting the appointment of

counsel and the consolidation of his cases. The District Court denied the motion as moot. 

Pruden appeals from the denial of his motion. 

1

 Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d

307, 322 (3d Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we will construe Pruden’s motion, which requests

the appointment of counsel and the consolidation of his multiple cases, as seeking postjudgment relief. To the extent that Pruden sought reconsideration of the District Court’s

order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), his motion was untimely. To the extent that

Pruden sought relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), his motion fails to state adequate

grounds for relief. Accordingly, the denial of Pruden’s motion was proper. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that this appeal has no arguable basis in

law or fact and will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Pruden’s motion for counsel and motion for a

preliminary injunction are denied. 

 2

Case: 07-3070 Document: 0031545910 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2008