2008 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 7-30-2008 

# J e rry Hurs t v

. Rehob oth B e a ch 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 . 07-3776

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " J e rry Hur s t v

. Reho both Be a ch" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 770. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/770NOT 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 os . 07- 3776, 07- 3935, 07- 4366 & 08- 1466

___________ J ERRY A. HU RST, A ppel l ant

v. CI TY O F RE H O BO TH BE A CH ; K EI TH BA N K S; PAU L PARSON S; J AI M E RI DD LE; M I CH AE L AR M S T RO NG; CO L L E T T E S UT HE RL AND; BO N N I E LA D D ; ER I C G LA SCO ; N I CO LE R EY N O LD S; J O H N BU SH EY ; FRA N CE S BU CC I ; J O H N W O TH ER S; T AM M I E M OR RI S ON; WALT E R S P E AKMAN; S US S E X C OUNT Y; S US S E X C OR RE CT I ONAL I NS T I T UT I ON; RI CK KE AR NE Y; R. N. W HI TT LE ; DR. BURNS ; CORRE CTI ONA L OF F I CER ; P . HAR RI S ON; B. A. GUNT E R; HUB E RT P E Y; ATL ANTI C S AND S HOTEL AND CONFE RENCE CENT ER;

RI CK PEREZ; SEAN M I LLER

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 0362 ( H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on)

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y28, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y30, 2008)A s th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e sh o rth a n d u se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill 1 c o n tin u e to u se it. 2 ___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. S itti n g in h is r o o m at th e A tl an ti c S an d s H o tel in R eh o b o th B ea ch , D elaw are , Jerry H ur s tneede d a mass age. So, he ca l l ed 9- 1- 1. T he pol i ce a rr i ved and e xpl ai ned thatt hey di d notpr ovi de mass age s ervi ces . A ft ertheyl eft , H ur s tdi al ed 9- 1- 1 agai n, r eques t i ng m edi cal per s onnel i ns t ead of the pol i ce. W hen H ur s tdi d notr es pond t o a pol i ce di s pat cherw ho r emai ned on the l i ne ort o pol i ce of fi cer s atthe door , the pol i ce obt ai ned a h o te l c a rd k e yto e n te r H u rs t’ s ro o m . In th e e n s u in g in te ra c tio n , th e p o lic e a rr e s te d H u rs t. C om plai ning of

his treatm ent duri ng the p oli ce vis i t s and in the co urse of his arr est , H urst s ued more than tw entydefe ndant s fort ens of m i l l i ons of dol l ar s i n compensa t oryand p u n itiv e d a m a g e s f

o r a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f

f e d e ra l a n d s ta te la w . I n gr oups , the def

endant s m oved t o di s m i s s H ur s t ’ s compl ai nt . O n A pr i l 1, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i ons fi l ed byni ne Sus s ex C ountydefe ndant s , the Sands 1 defe ndant s , defe ndantSpeakman, defe ndantW other s , and def endant s B anks , Sut her l and, L add, G l as co, R eynol ds , B us hey , and B ucci . O n thats ame day , the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed H ur s t ’ s m ot i on t o amend, m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s , r eques tforthe entryof defa ul tand mot i on fordefa ul tj udgm ent , and mot i on form i s cel l aneous r el i ef. T heW e r ej ectH ur s t ’ s cont ent i on thatw e l ack appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overhi s appea l 2 beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed hi s m ot i on forr el i ef f r om j udgm entbys t at i ng thatno j udgm entw as ent er ed i n hi s cas e bec aus e al l hi s cl ai m s w er e di s m i s s ed. T he D i s tr i ct C our thas ent er ed a de ci s i on thati s fi nal as t o al l part i es and ca us es of ac t i on. See A ndr ew v. U ni t ed St at es , 373 U . S. 334, 340 ( 1963) ( ci t i ng C ol l i ns v. M i l l er , 252 U . S. 364 (19 2 0 )); M ell o n B an k , N . A . v . M etro C o m m u n icati o n s, Inc . , 9 4 5 F . 2 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 3 D istri ct C o u rtlat er d en ied H u rst ’s m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n o f th e A p ri l 1, 20 0 5 o rde r, a n d a d d e d th a tth e c o mp l a i n ta g a i n s td e f e n d a n tM o rr i s o n wa s a l s o d i s mi s s e d . On February21, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the Sus s ex C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on’ s m ot i on forj udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs . O n J une 16, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed a s chedul i ng o rd e r f o r th e re m a in in g d e f

e n d a n ts. O n O c to b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , af ter h o ld in g a h e a rin g to re so lv e o n g o in g d isc o v e ryd isp u tes , the D istric t C o u rt o rd e re d H u rst to re sp o n d to i nt err ogat or i es . O n D ece m ber12, 2006, aft erhol di ng anotherhear i ng and w ei ghi ng t he fa ctors se t ou t i n P o u li s v . S tat e F arm F ir e & C as. C o . , 7 4 7 F . 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ), the D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed H urst ’s cl ai m s agai nstthe rem ai ning def end ants . T he D istric t C o u rt su b se q u e n tlyd e n ied tw o m o tio n s f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , an o th e r m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ris, a n d a m o tio n f o r re lief f ro m ju d g m e n t. H u rst a p p e a ls f ro m a ll th e s e o rd e rs in th is c o n s o lid a te d c a s e . W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se 2 pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ngs on the def endant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s and m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t on the p lead ing s. S ee N am i v. Fa u v er, 82 F . 3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3d C ir . 1996) ; L eamerv. Fauver , 288 F. 3d 532, 535 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ct4

C our t ’ s or der s deny i ng H ur s t ’ s m ot i on fordefa ul tj udgm ent , m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on, m o tio n s f

o r i n f o rm a p a u p e ri s s ta tu s , a n d m o tio n to a m e n d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See J or den v. N at ’ l G uar d B ur eau, 877 F. 2d 245, 250- 51 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ; K os hatka v. Phi l a. N ew s paper s , I nc. , 762 F. 2d 329, 333 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ; J ones v. Z i m m erm an, 752 F . 2 d 7 6 , 7 8 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ; L a k e v . A rn o l d , 2 3 2 F . 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 7 3 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . We s i m i l ar l yr evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s coveryand s chedul i ng or der s forabus e of di s cr et i on. See B rum fi el d v. Sander s , 232 F. 3d 376, 380 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ; I n r e Fi ne Paper A n titru st L iti g a tio n , 6 8 5 F .2 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). F in a lly , w e e v a lu a te th e p ro p rie ty of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the l as tr emai ni ng defe ndant s thr ough the l ens of the P o u li s fa ctors, ask ing also w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld h av e c o n side red a less se v ere s a n c tio n . S e e In re J e w e lc o r I n c ., 1 1 F .3 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t in Hu r s t ’ s f a v o ro n h i s c l a i ms a g a i n s ts o me d e f e n d a n t s c l o s e t o th e i n c e p t i o n o f th e c a s e . As w e have expr es s ed r epea t edl y , w e fa vorr es ol ut i ons on the mer i t s . See J or den, 877 F. 2d at251. Fur therm or e, the def endant s pr es ent ed l i t i gabl e def ens es , and H ur s tdi d nots how h o w h e w o u ld b e p re

ju d ice d b ya n o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n o r th a t an yd e lay i n r es pondi ng t o t he compl ai ntw as due t o cul pabl e conduc t . See C hamber l ai n v. G i ampapa, 2 1 0 F . 3 d 1 5 4 , 1 6 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). In th e sa m e o rde r, the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied H u rst ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ris. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in doi ng s o, beca us e H ur s thad al r eadypai d the fi l i ng fee and ef fec t ed s ervi ce on a l l butoneIn addit i on t o arguing thatthe D i stri ctC ou rt ’s rul i ng i n thei r favor w as proper, these 3 d e f e n d a n ts/a p p e llee s a rg u e th a t H u rst d id n o t p re se n t an ya rg u m e n ts s p e c if ic to th e m in hi s i nform al br i ef. H ow ever , beca us e i tappea r s thatH ur s tobj ect s t o al l the rul i ngs he l i s t s i n hi s br i ef a nd i s cert ai n he s t at ed cl ai m s thatw oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r ei ns t at ementof h is la w s u it, w e c o n s id e r t h e m e ri ts o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . 5 defe ndant . H ur s tdi d notpr ovi de evi dent i arys uppor ti n hi s m ot i on form i s cel l aneous r el i ef f orhi s cl ai m thathe w as ent i t l ed t o $384. 00 i n cos t s for“extr aor di naryand e x ten siv e ” c o sts in e f

f e c tin g se rv ice , so th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d en y ing that m o ti o n , eith er. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng H ur s t ’ s fi r s tm ot i on to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld n o t d e ter m in e w h a t H u rst w ish e d to al l ege in an am end ed co m plai nt fr om H urst ’s argum ents that he w i shed to am end becau se o f s u p p o s e d ly ille g a lly w ith h e ld e v id e n c e . T he D i stri ctC ou rtproperl ydis m i ssed the co m plai nt agai nstdefe nd ants B ank s, S u th e r l a n d , La d d , Gl a s c o , Re yn o l d s , Bu s h e y , a n d Bu c c i f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. 3 H ur s tnamed t hem i n t he capt i on of hi s compl ai nti n thei ri ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as pol i ce of

fi cer s forthe C i tyof R ehoboth B eac h. H ow ever , exce ptfornot i ng thatSut her l and r eturned hi s pr opertyaft erhi s r el eas e fr om cus t ody , H ur s tdi d noti ncl ude anys peci fi c fa ctual al l egat i ons agai ns tthem. Si m i l ar l y , he di d noti ncl ude anyal l egat i ons agai ns tT amm i e M orr i s on, ot herthan t o not e thats he w as an EM T , s o he di d nots t at e a c la im a g a in s t h e r, e ith e r.6

S i m i l arl y , the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n d i sm i ssi ng the co m plai nt agai nst defe ndantSpeakman. A l though H ur s tnamed Speakm an, the C i tySol i ci t orforthe C i tyof R e h o b o th B e a c h , in h is o f f icia l an d in d iv id u a l ca p a c iti e s in th e c a p tio n o f th e c o m p lain t, he di d noti ncl ude anyfac tual al l egat i ons agai ns thi m . A ccor di ngl y , H ur s tdi d nots t at e a c la im a g a in s t S p e a k m a n . T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntagai ns tdefe ndantW other s for fai l ur e t o eff

ects ervi ce. H ur s tfi l ed hi s compl ai nti n A pr i l 2003. W other s w as noty et s erved bythe end of

A ugus t , w hen the D i s tr i ctC our tor der ed H ur s tt o compl et e the s ervi ce of

pr oces s byO ct ober10, 2003. I n the end of O ct ober , H ur s tas ked foran ext ens i on of a f

ew day s s o t hathe coul d i m m edi at el yeff ects ervi ce. H ow ever , a y earand a h a lf la te r, H u rs t s till h a d n o t e f f e c te d s e rv ic e o n W o th e rs . T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso p rop erlyd ism issed the S an d s d ef en d an ts from H u rst ’s act i on. I n r el at i on t o t he Sands defe ndant s , H ur s tbr oadl ycont ended i n l i s t i ng hi s caus es of ac t i on thatthe pol i ce c ons pi r ed w i th them t o br eak- i n t o hi s hot el r oom t o s ei ze a nd abducthi m and vi ol at e the C ons t i tut i on. H ow ever , H ur s tm or e s peci fi cal l yal l eged that hi s 9- 1- 1 cal l s br oughtthe pol i ce t o the hot el , and thatthe pol i ce obt ai ned hi s r oom key fr om a hot el cl erk i n or dert o open hi s doort o r es pond t o the s econd c al l . H e al s o al l eged thata hot el cl erk w i tnes s ed the al l eged mi s tr eatm entbypol i ce. W i th hi s al l egat i ons , he d id n o t p lea d th a t th e S a n d s d e f e n d a n ts, p riv a te p a rties w h o a re n o t sta te a c to rs, w ill f u lly part i ci pat ed i n a j oi ntcons pi r acyt o depr i ve hi m of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . See A bbot tv.7

L at s haw , 164 F. 3d 141, 147- 48 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . Fur therm or e, H ur s tdi d noti ncl ude any f a c ts to su p p o rt h is re m a in in g a lleg a tio n , a le g a l co n c lu sio n th a t th e S a n d s d e f e n d a n ts br eac hed the contr actfora r ent al agr eementforthe hot el r oom . T he D i s tr i ctC our tw as corr ectt o concl ude thatH ur s tdi d nots t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed a g a in s t th e S a n d s d e f

e n d a n ts . Fur therm or e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng the mot i on forj udgm enton the p lead ing s filed b yd ef en d an t Su ssex C o rrecti o n al Insti tuti o n o f th e D elaw are De p a r t me n to f

Co r r e c t i o n s ( “ S u s s e x ” ) . Th e El e v e n th Ame n d me n tb a rr e d Hu r s t ’ s c l a i ms fordamages agai ns tSuss ex, an age ncyof the s t at e thatdi d notw ai ve i t s s over ei gn im m u n ity . S ee P en n h u rstS tat e S ch . & H o sp . v . H alde rm an , 4 6 5 U . S . 8 9 , 9 8 (19 8 4 ); E d elm an v . Jo rdo n , 4 1 5 U . S . 6 5 1 , 6 6 3 (19 7 4 ). A lth o u g h C o n g ress c an ab rog ate a stat e’s s over ei gn i m m uni ty , i tdi d notdo s o thr ough the ena ctm entof 42 U . S. C . § 1983 or18 U . S. C . § 242, the fe der al l aw s underw hi ch H ur s tpr ocee ded. See Q uern v. J or dan, 440 U .S . 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 (1 9 7 9 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng Suss ex C ounty , as w el l as the Sus s ex C o u n tye m p lo y e e s in th e ir o f f icia l ca p a c ity , fr o m th e a c tio n , eith e r. H u rst b a se d h is c laim agai ns tSuss ex C ount yon hi s as s ert i on thatthe Sus s ex C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on w as o rg a n iz e d a n d o p e ra te d u n d e r t h e la w s o f S u s s e x C o u n ty an d /o r t h e S ta te o f D e la w a re . H e d i d n o te x p l a i n h o w S u s s e x C o u n ty, w h i c h d o e s n o to p e r a t e th e c o rr e c t i o n a l f a c i l i ty, s peci fi cal l yw r onged hi m . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed the cl ai m s agai ns tthe otherT h is ru lin g s e rv e s a s a lte rn a tiv e b a s is to a f f ir m a ll o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. 4 8 ei ghtSuss ex C ountydefe ndant s i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es as “empl oy ees orotherw i s e” w ith S u ss e x C o u n tyb e c a u se th e yw e re n o t em p lo y e d b yS u ss e x C o u n tya n d b e c a u se W ill v . M ich ig a n D e p ’t o f

S tate P o lice , 4 9 1 U .S . 5 8 , 7 1 (1 9 8 9 ), b a rre d a d a m a g e s re m e d yif th e yw e re sta te e m p lo y e e s. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso c o n c lu d e d su a sp o n te th a t th e su it agai ns tthem i n t hei rper s onal capa ci t i es coul d nots t and bec aus e H ur s tdi d noti ncl ude s peci fi c al l egat i ons agai ns tthem. W e w i l l notr eac h the ques t i on of w hetherthe bas i s for the ei ghtSuss ex C ount ydefe ndant s w as pr oper ; w e w i l l i ns t ead a ffi r m the dec i s i on on o th e r g ro u n d s . S e e E ri e T e le c o m m s . v . E ri e , 8 5 3 F .2 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). N am ely , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n u lt im atelyd ism issi n g H u rst ’s ca se a fter a b alan cing o f th e P o u li s fa ctors. T o ev alua te a d ism issal un d er P o u li s, w e c o n side r a 4 di s tr i ctcourt ’ s bal anci ng of “( 1) the ext entof the party ’ s per s onal r es pons i bi l i ty ; ( 2) t he p re ju d ice to th e a d v e rsa ryc a u se d b yth e f a ilu re to m e e t sc h e d u lin g o rd e rs a n d re sp o n d to di s covery ; ( 3) a hi s t oryof di l at or i nes s ; ( 4) w hetherthe conduc tof the party. . . w as w i l l ful ori n bad fa i th; ( 5) the ef fec t i venes s of s anct i ons otherthan di s m i s s al , w hi ch ent ai l s an ana l y s i s of al t ernat i ve s anct i ons ; and ( 6) the mer i t or i ous nes s of the cl ai m or defe ns e. ” Em er s on v. T hi el C ol l ege, 296 F. 3d 184, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng Poul i s v. S tat e F arm F ir e & C as. C o . , 7 4 7 F . 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 )). H ur s tr epr es ent ed hi m s el f, s o he bor e the r es pons i bi l i tyforthe fa i l ur es t o m eet sch ed u li n g o rde rs an d to resp o n d to d isco v eryreq u ests an d co m p lyw ith a d isco v eryT he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i s s ui ng the s t andar d s chedul i ng or der 5 o r t h e d is c o v e ry o rd e r f ro m w h ic h H u rs t a p p e a ls .

9 or der . See Em er s on, 296 F. 3d at190. H ur s t ’ s adver s ar i es s uffe r ed pr ej udi ce a s l i t i gat i on

5 d r a g g e d o n a n d th e yr e ma i n e d i n th e d a r k a b o u tth e e x t e n to f a n yl i a b i l i tyo rd a ma g e s . As the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, theyw er e unabl e t o pr epar e a de fens e w i thouti nform at i on fr om di s covery . H ur s thad a hi s t oryof di l at or i nes s . H i s att empt s t o thw artanyeff or t s at di s coveryw er e ongoi ng and s ugges t ed bad f ai th. Som e of hi s obj ect i ons w er e fr i vol ous atbes t , i ncl udi ng hi s cl ai m thatdi s cl os ur e of i nform at i on w oul d vi ol at e the att orney - cl i ent pr i vi l ege be caus e he w as s ervi ng as hi s ow n couns el . Fur therm or e, even a ft erthe D i s tr i ct C our tt ook cons i der abl e t i m e t o l i s t en t o H ur s t ’ s conce rns ata hea r i ng and rul e on many of hi s obj ect i ons , H ur s tdi d notcompl yw i th the r es ul t i ng or der . H e cont i nued t o obs truct di s coverydes pi t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s w arni ng thathe w as i nvi t i ng s anct i ons . For in s ta n c e , H u rs t o f

f e re d s h if tin g e x p la n a tio n s f

o r a v o id in g h is d e p o s itio n . A ls o , a m o n e ta ry sa n c tio n w o u ld n o t d e te r H u rs t b e c a u s e h e h a d n o m o n e yto p a yth e s a n c tio n . F o r th ese rea so n s, an d alth o u g h the D istri ct C o u rtco u ld n o t def init ivelysayH u rst ’s cl ai m s w er e w i thoutm er i t , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n rul i ng thatt he P o u lis f a c to rs w e ig h e d in f

a v o r o f d is m is s in g H u rs t’ s a c tio n . F u rth erm o re, th e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing H u rst ’s m o tio n s f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , b e c a u se a m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n sh o u ld b e u se d “ to c o rr e c t m a n if

e s t e rr o rs o f

la w o r f a c t o r t o p re s e n t n e w ly d is c o v e re d e v id e n c e ,”T he mot i on fi l ed bydefe ndant s R ehoboth B eac h and Speakman thatw e have 6 co n stru ed as a m o ti o n to ex p an d the re co rd is d en ied. A lso, w e re ject H u rst ’s m i s char act er i zat i on of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r es pect ful tr eatm entof hi m . I n no w aydoes the r ecor d s uppor tH ur s t ’ s cl ai m s of emot i onal t i r ades , fr ant i c att empt s atfabr i cat i on, and o th e r j u d ic ia l m is c o n d u c t. 10 s ee H ar s co C orp. v. Z l otni cki , 779 F. 2d 906, 909 ( 3d C i r . 1985) , nott o r es t at e al r eady re jec ted a rg u m e n ts, w h ich is w h a t H u rst d id . A lso , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in deny i ng H ur s t ’ s m ot i on forr el i ef f r om j udgm entorm ot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s atthe end of hi s D i s tr i ctC our tcas e bec aus e the pr ocee di ngs had concl uded w i th t he di s m i s s al of hi s act i on. In su m , w e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 6