2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-15-2012

Angela Robinson;v. Eric Hicks

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3096

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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

"Angela Robinson;v. Eric Hicks" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 159.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/159
BLD-015 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3096

___________

ANGELA ROBINSON; JOHNNY ROBINSON

Individually and as the parents of the minor plaintiff; J. R.,

Appellants

v.

ERIC HICKS; TINA KING; CITY OF HARRISBURG; 

SHARON BOLOGNESE; CPYSL

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-07-cv-01751)

District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

October 18, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 15, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Angela Robinson and Johnny Robinson, individually and on behalf of the minor 

J.R., appeal pro se from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle 
2

District of Pennsylvania denying the Robinsons’ motion for reconsideration. Because 

this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm for 

principally the same reasons as given in the District Court’s order. 

I.

As the parties are familiar with the facts of this lawsuit, we will only briefly revisit 

them here.

Appellants filed a complaint and initiated the underlying action in September

2007, naming as defendants Sharon Bolognese; Erik Hicks; Tina King; the City of 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Central Pennsylvania Youth Soccer League. An amended 

complaint was filed in April 2008. Defendants moved for summary judgment in March 

2010, and in February 2011 the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of

defendants. Appellants appealed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to this 

Court, and in November 2011 we affirmed the District Court’s judgment.

Shortly thereafter, appellants filed a motion in the District Court pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from judgment. In their motion, 

appellants alleged that the District Court’s bias against their attorney prejudiced 

disposition of their case. The District Court denied the Rule 60(b) motion for four

reasons. First, the District Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion 

because appellants knew the basis for the allegations of judicial misconduct and bias

prior to the appeal of the order granting summary judgment. Those claims of bias and 

misconduct were not raised in the appeal, and therefore the District Court did not have 
3

jurisdiction to alter this Court’s mandate by ruling on the Rule 60(b) motion. Second, the 

District Court determined that the motion made conclusory allegations that were not 

supported by facts in the record. Third, this Court’s plenary review and affirmance of the 

District Court’s grant of summary judgment confirmed that any potential judicial 

misconduct was harmless error and provided no basis for relief. Fourth, the District 

Court determined that the Rule 60(b) motion was untimely because the allegations of 

judicial bias and misconduct were known to appellants during its proceedings before the 

District Court but were not raised until after summary judgment had been granted and the

order affirmed by this Court.

Following the denial of their Rule 60(b) motion, appellants moved in the District 

Court for reconsideration of the order. The District Court denied the motion for 

reconsideration and appellants filed a notice of appeal. The Clerk alerted the parties that 

the appeal was being considered for possible summary action. Appellants responded and

made factual assertions in support of their motion for reconsideration.

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review 

the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 

591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no 

substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
4

III.

A motion for reconsideration “must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an 

intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the 

need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 

669. Appellants’ motion does not rely on an intervening change in controlling law or the 

availability of new evidence. To the extent that appellants’ motion relied on grounds of 

clear error and manifest injustice, the bare accusations of judicial bias are insufficient to 

satisfy the high threshold for finding clear error and manifest injustice. See Laffey v. 

Nw. Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071, 1082-83, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1984).1

IV.

For the reasons we have given, we agree with the District Court’s denial of the 

appellants’ motion for reconsideration. As this appeal presents no substantial question, 

we will summarily affirm.

 1 To the extent that appellants’ motion for reconsideration also requested recusal of Judge 

Mariani, we note that such a motion is moot because the District Court properly denied 

the motion for reconsideration and no other matters are pending in the District Court.