NO T PRECEDENTI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 09- 1222
D E B O R A H V E N E S E V IC H , A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AE L J . L E ONAR D; F RA NC I NE S E I S L OVE
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C
. N o. 1- 07- cv- 02118) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. C hr i s t opherC
. C onner Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on O ct ober2, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay5, 2010)

O P I N I O N
RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: D e b o ra h V e n e se v ich a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e f u sa l to v a c a te a f

o o tn o te
re b u k in g h e r a tto rn e yf

o r p lag iar izin g tex t f

ro m ju d icia l o p in io n s in a b rie f su b m itt e d to2

th e c o u rt. F o r th e re a so n s b e lo w , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. V enes evi ch, empl oy ed bya fe der al agenc y , fi l ed an a ct i on agai ns therempl oy er fo r un law fu l r etali ati o n u n d er B i vens v. Si x U nknow n N

am ed Agent

s of the Feder al B ur eau of

N ar cot i cs , 40 3 U
. S
. 38 8 (197 1). T he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed the defen dan t s’
m o ti o n to d ism iss be ca u se, un d er B us h v. Lucas , 4 6 2 U . S
. 3 6 7 (19 8 3 ), h er B i vens c laim
w as for ecl os ed byadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e underthe C i vi l Servi ce Refor m A ct of 1978, Pub. L . N o. 95- 454, 92 St at . 1111. W e gr ant ed s um m aryaff i r m ance of the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal of V enesev i ch’s cl ai m s. T he s ol e i s s ue on appe al conce r ns V enes evi ch’ s br i ef s ubm i t t ed byat t orney D onal d B ai l eyi n oppos i t i on t o t he def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s . Pages s i x t hr ough t en
o f th e b ri e f c o n s is t a lm o s t e n tir e ly o f te x t lif te d f ro m ju d ic ia l o p in io n s w ith o u t a ttr ib u tio n . I n footnot e 2 of hi s m emora ndum di s m i s s i ng V enes evi ch’ s cl ai m s , J udge C hr i s t opher C onnori s s ued a “ di r ectr ebuke” cr i t i ci zi ng M r . B ai l eyforpl agi ar i s m . ( A pp. 12. ) T he f o o tn o te r e c ited th e c o u rt’s p rio r a d m o n ish m e n t o f M r. B a ileyf

o r th e sa m e p ra c tice in Schul t zv. W i l s on , N o. 04- C V
- 1823, 2007 W L 4276696, at*6 n. 13 ( M . D . Pa. D ec. 4, 2007)
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed M r . B ai l ey ’ s m ot i on t o vaca t e the mem or andum and
s tr ik e th e f

o o tn o te . (A p p . 1 9 -2 0 .) W e of c ou rs e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a D i stri ctC ou rt ’s i m po si t i on of san ct i on s,
s ee , e. g. , G ary v. B radd ock C em et ery , 517 F. 3d 195 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , butthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s s tate m e n t in its d ism iss a l o rd e r w a s n o t a s a n c tio n . N o r d o its c o m m e n ts in its3

or derdeny i ng r econs i der at i on qual i fyas a s anct i on. W e ther efor e l ack j ur i s di ct i on. I n Bo we rs v . NCAA , 475 F. 3d 524 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , w e not ed “di s agr eementamong t he court s of appe al s as t o w hetherand w hen a c our t ’ s s t at ementi n a j udi ci al opi ni on amount s t o a s anct i on ‘ aff ect i ng an att orney ’ s pr ofes s i onal r eput at i on’ and thus

‘ i m pos [i ng] a l egal l ys uffi ci enti nj uryt o s uppor tappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. ’ ” I d. at543 ( quot i ng B ut l erv. B i ocor e Med. Techs
. , I nc . , 348 F. 3d 1163, 1167- 68 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) )
. W e obs erved the court s ’ “nea rcompl et e agr eementthan an or der
r i s i ng t o t he l evel of a publ i c r epr i m and i s a s anct i on”; butqual i fi ed thatby acknow l edgi ng t hat“mer e j udi ci al cr i t i ci s m i s i ns uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e a s anct i on. ” B ow ers , 47 5 F . 3d at54 3. W e fou nd i tun necessaryt o w ade d eeplyi nto the is sue bec ause t he D i s t r i ctC our tor deri n t hatcas e gr ant ed a mot i on expl i ci t l yr eques t i ng the i m pos i t i on
o f s a n c tio n s , a n d th e o rd e r e x p re s s ly sta te d th a t it w a s in te n d e d a s a s a n c tio n . I d. at544. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a c tio n in th is c a s e d if f e rs m a te ri a lly f

ro m th e o n e in B o w e rs . T he courti n t hi s cas e mer el ym ade a n obs ervat i on i n a footnot e, i n an or derdevot ed pr i nci pal l yt o t he mer i t s of the under l y i ng l i t i gat i on. T he or derw as ent er ed upon a
m o tio n to d ism iss , n o t a m o tio n f o r sa n c tio n s, a n d th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t f o rm a lly i ndi cat e thati ti nt ended t o s anct i on B ai l ey . T he s t at ementw as m or e orl es s a pas s i ng
r emar k, m ade i n t he cour s e of a rul i ng on t he mer i t s . O urveryr ece ntpr ece dentfur t her confi r m s t hata j udi ci al admoni s hm entof thi s type i s notnece s s ar i l ycons i der ed a
s a n c tio n . See G r i derv. Keys t one H eal th P l an C entr al

, I nc. , 580 F. 3d 119, 145- 46 ( 3d4

C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (h o ld in g D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in c o n c lu d in g th a t M a g istra te J udge’ s admoni s hm entw as a s anct i on)
. B eca us e the cha l l enged l anguage i n t he D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or derw as m er e j udi ci al cr i t i ci s m , and nota form al s anct i on, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on
o v e r t h e a p p e a l. See W eis s m an v. Q uai lLodge, I nc. , 1 7 9 F . 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 0 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ); I n r e Wi l l i a ms , 1 5 6 F . 3 d 8 6 , 9 3 (1st C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , w e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l.