2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-19-2010 

# B ruce M urr a y v . D a vid D iGu glielmo P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1346

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" B r uc e M urr a y v . D a vid DiG u gl ie lmo " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1482. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1482A L D - 169 NOT P RE CE DE NT I 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. 10- 1346 BR UC E M UR RA Y, A ppel l ant

v. S U P T . D . D IG U G L IE L M O , G ra ter f o rd P riso n ; C A P T A IN T H O M A S D O H M A N ; L IE U T E N A N T JO H N M O Y E R , G ra ter f o rd P riso n ; J O H N D O E ’ S; M A R Y C A N I N O , H ear i ng E xami ner

O n 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 02310) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 15, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : A pr i l 19, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM B ruce M urr ayapp eal s fr om an o rderof the D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssi ng his “R equ estT h e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r a lso d ire c ted th e c ler k to f o rw a rd M u rra y ’s I F P re q u e st to 1 t hi s C our t . H ow ever , as m ent i oned ea r l i er , w e had a l r eadygr ant ed M ur r ay ’ s I FP m ot i on. 2 forFor m a Pauper i s . ” Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I. I n M ay2009, M ur r ay , a pr o s e pr i s oner , fi l ed a c i vi l act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns tt he Super i nt endentatt he St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at G r at er for d ( “SC I G r at er for d”) , D avi d D i G ugl i el m o, as w el l as s ever al ot herempl oy ees at S C I G ra ter f

o rd . A f ter M u rra yf

iled a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in th e c a se , the D e f e n d a n ts m oved t o di s m i s s t he ac t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned that , even c ons t rui ng t he amended compl ai ntl i ber al l y , M ur r ay ’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed byt he appl i cabl e s t atut e of lim itatio n s. In a n A u g u st 2 0 0 9 d e c isio n , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e c a se p u rsu a n t to F ed . R . C iv. P. 12 (b)(6 ) an d M u rrayfil ed a ti m elyap p ea l. In N o v em b er 2 0 0 9 , this C o u rt gr ant ed M ur r ay ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s ( “I FP”) . W hi l e hi s appea l
r e ma i n e d p e n d i n g i n t h i s Co u r t , M u r r a yf i l e d i n t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta “ Re q u e s tf o rF o r ma P au p eris, ” a p p are n tl ysee k ing to b e g ran ted a d d it ion al IF P statu s in the D istri ct C o u rt . In a J anuary2010 or der , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the r eques t , fi ndi ng t hatbeca us e M ur r ay had al r eadyfi l ed an a ppeal i n t hi s C our t , t he D i s t r i ctC our thad bee n di ves t ed of j ur i s di ct i on overt he ca s e. M ur r ayfi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l i n t hi s C our ts eeki ng 1
r evi ew of thatdet erm i nat i on.3 I I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he D i s t r i ct C our tappr opr i at el ydeni ed M ur r ay ’ s “R eques tforFor m a Pauper i s . ” A s t he D i s t r i ct C our tcorr ect l ynot ed, M ur r ayhad al r eadyfi l ed an a ppeal t o t hi s C our tof the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fi nal j udgm entand thus t he D i s t r i ctC our thad bee n di ves t ed of j ur i s di ct i on. See V enen v. Sw eet , 758 F. 2d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( gener al l y , t he fi l i ng of a not i ce of appea l di ves t s t he di s t r i ctcour tof j ur i s di ct i on overt he ca s e pendi ng di s pos i t i on of the
a pp e a l ) . Furt he r mor e , byt he t i me M urr a yfi l e d h i s r e qu e s ti n the D i s t r i c tCour t , hi s I FP
m o tio n h a d a lre a d yb e e n g ra n ted in th is C o u rt. A s th e re is n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n p re se n ted b yth is a p p e a l, w e w ill su m m a rily aff i r m . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forcouns el , as w el l as hi s m ot i on r eques t i ng t r ans cr i pt s of the compl et e r ecor d and docke tentr i es , ar e deni ed.