2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-13-2013

Richard Owens v. Frank Pravenzaro

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-2613

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Richard Owens v. Frank Pravenzaro" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 220.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/220
1

DLD-409 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2613

___________

RICHARD OWENS,

Appellant

v.

FRANK PRAVENZARO, SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF; CHARLES M. O'NEILL,

WARDEN, SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL; JOHN DOE (NAME UNKNOWN); 

BALLARD, PHYSICIAN AT SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL; NURSE REPTUS-QUINN, 

MEDICAL SUPERVISOR

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.N.J. Civil No. 3-09-cv-00254)

District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper

____________________________________

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

August 29, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 13, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM

Richard Owens is a New Jersey prisoner. In January 2009, he commenced this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging: (1) cruel and unusual punishment 

while incarcerated at the Somerset County Jail (“SCJ”) based on the conditions of his 

confinement; (2) a physical assault by an unidentified SCJ official; (3) deliberate 

indifference by SCJ medical staff to his serious medical conditions; and (4) tampering 

with his legal correspondence by SCJ officials.

In November 2010, after more than 120 days of inactivity, the Clerk issued notice 

that Owens’ case would be dismissed for lack of prosecution in thirty days in accordance 

with District of New Jersey Local Civil Rule 41.1(a) (the local rule counterpart to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b)). In December 2010, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case

without prejudice. In December 2012, Owens moved to reopen the case and for 

appointment of counsel, asserting that his failure to prosecute was due to protracted 

mental illness.

The District Court denied Owens’ motion to reopen, which it construed as brought 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The District Court observed that Owens 

waited nearly two years before requesting the case be reopened and that, despite claiming

mental incapacity, Owens remained capable of pursuing relief contemporaneously in 

another case pending before the District Court. See Owens v. Volunteers of Am. Del.

Valley-Promise, D.N.J. Civil No. 1:08-cv-04612. Accordingly, the District Court 

concluded that Owens failed to seek relief “within a reasonable time” as required by the 
3

rule, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), and failed to establish “exceptional circumstances”

justifying relief. See Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002). 

The District Court also denied the motion seeking appointment of counsel as moot.

Owens appeals pro se. Because we granted him leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we must screen this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine 

whether it should be dismissed as frivolous. An appeal is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable 

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We 

conclude that there is no arguable basis to find that the District Court abused its 

discretion in denying Owens’ motion to reopen for the reasons set forth in its opinion. We 

also agree that his motion seeking appointment of counsel was properly denied. 

Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i).