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 7-21-2008 

# S mith v . M eye rs 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 . 07-3999

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 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 " S mith v . M eye r s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 821. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/821* * * AM EN DE D NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

B L D - 112 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. 07- 3999

___________ DE NNI S L E E S M I T H, A ppel l ant v . P A T R IC IA A . M E Y E R S ; M A C K L . D A V IS , J R .; S TE VEN S . KREBS ; BARBARA KREBS

____________________________________ 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 N o. 07- cv- 00525) D is tr ic t J u d g e : H o n o ra b le J o s e p h J . F a rn a n , J r.

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al D ue t o a J ur i s di ct i onal D efe ctorSum m aryA ct i on 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 J anuary25, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y21, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM D enni s L ee Smi t h appea l s pr o s e fr om the mem or andum orde rof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng2

o rd e r. T re a tin g th is a s a n a p p e a l f ro m th e d e n ial o f

a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n , w e w ill s um m ar i l yaff

i r m . See LA R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. I . Sm i t h fi l ed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our ta documentpart i al l yent i t l ed “N ot i ce of M ot i on E x Par t e EM E R G E N C Y T empora r yR es t r ai ni ng ‘ O r der , ’ ” w hi ch he a l l egedl ys erved on th e o th e r p a rties . T h e m o tio n a p p a re n tlya ro se o u t o f d isp u tes re g a rd in g th e a lleg e d sa le and l eas i ng of r eal es t at e ow ned byD efe ndantPatr i ci a A . M ey er s and the att empt ed r evoca t i on of a pow erof att or neyal l egedl ygi ven byM ey er s t o Sm i t h. Sm i t h al l eged that r el at ed l i t i gat i on has occurr ed i n s uch forum s as the D el aw ar e C our tof C hance r y , the D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e, and thi s C our t . I n par t i cul ar , he appa r ent l yat t empt ed, w i t hout su c c e ss , to r e p re se n t M e y e rs b a se d o n th e a lleg e d p o w e r o f a tto rn e y , ev e n th o u g h h e is nota l i cens ed l aw y er . I n hi s m ot i on, Sm i t h cl ai m ed vi ol at i ons of the D ue Pr oces s and E qual Pr ot ect i on C l aus es , 42 U . S. C . § 1981, and 42 U . S. C . § 1985 beca us e he i s a “bl ack m al e w ho st oo d u p ag ai nstraci sm w hil e helpi ng a w hit e fem al e t o w i n a co urtcase ag ains t w h it e m ales [ sic] ev il d o ers.” (M o t. S tat em en t of F ac ts at8 (em p h asis o m itted).) H e al s o al l eged, among ot hert hi ngs , s l ander , fal s e arr es t , and a c ons pi r acyt o cover - up a n ym is c o n d u c t. W ith re sp e c t to th e re lief so u g h t, th e D istric t C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t S m ith w ish e d “ to p re v e n t f u rth e r ‘irre p a ra b le h e d o n ic d a m a g e (s) ’ a n d to p re v e n t ‘f u rth e r irre p a ra b le m isle a d in g /f

a lse o u tb u rst o f

p e rn icio u s - f

a lse sta tem e n t(s) o f

th e v e ryu n re a listic v iab ili ty3

of veryi gnor antper s on( s ) w ho know w ho theyar e. ’ ” ( 9/ 12/ 07 M em. O r derat1 ( quot i ng M ot . at2. ) . ) H e furt her“s eeks t o pr ecl ude a numberof ac t i ons i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, t he i s s uance of outr ageous and abs ur d document s , the s al e orl eas e of c ert ai n r eal pr oper t y , an i ndi vi dual fr om s peaki ng t o hi m , hat eful act s , cons pi r acyand/ orfr ame- up by ce rt ain D ef

en d an ts. ” (Id . ) A p p ly ing the p reli m inaryinjun cti o n stan d ard , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied S m ith ’s m ot i on. Sm i t h t i m el yappea l ed and s ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on t o di s qual i fythe D i s tr i ct J u d g e a s w e ll a s a m o tio n to s ta yth e c u rr e n t a p p e a l p e n d in g a c ri m in a l in v e s tig a tio n . II. W hi l e an a ppeal m aynotbe t aken f r om a dec i s i on deny i ng a t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng o rde r, see , e.g., In re A rth u r T rea ch er’s F ran ch ise L it ig., 6 8 9 F . 2 d 1 1 5 0 , 1 1 5 3 (3d C ir . 1982) , w e do have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overor der s “gr ant i ng, cont i nui ng, m odi fy i ng, r efus i ng ordi s s ol vi ng i nj unct i ons . ” 28 U . S. C . § 1292( a) ( 1) . A l t hough Sm i t h’ s m ot i on w as ent i t l ed a mot i on fora t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or derand w as appar ent l ydeni ed as s uch byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , t he des i gnat i on of an or deri s notcontr ol l i ng. See, e. g. , C ohen v. B d. of T r. of the U niv. of M ed. & D enti stryof N . J. , 867 F. 2d 1455, 1466 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( en banc ) . I ns t ead, cons i der i ng t he purpos e and e ffe ctof the mem or andum orde ri t s el f, s ee, e. g. , A r t hurT r eac her ’ s , 689 F. 2d at1155 n. 7, w e conc l ude thati ts houl d be tr eat ed as a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on rul i ng. I n par t i cul ar , the D i s t r i ctC our texpr es s l yappl i ed the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on s t andar d, Sm i t h appar ent l ys oughtr el i ef pe ndi ng the r es ol ut i on ofW e furt herl ack the pow ert o or dera cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on. 1 4 hi s l i t i gat i on, and he a l l egedl ypr ovi ded not i ce of hi s m ot i on t o t he oppos i ng par t i es . See, e .g ., F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 5 (a )( 1 ); C o h e n , 8 6 7 F .2 d a t 1 4 6 5 n .9 . In o rde r t o o b tai n the “ ex tr ao rdin aryrem ed y ” o f a p reli m inaryinjun cti o n , F ran k ’s G M C T ruck C ent er , I nc. v. G en. M ot or s C orp. , 847 F. 2d 100, 102 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed), t he m ov i ng partym ustdem on strat e: “(1) a l i keli ho od of suc cess on t he m eri t s; ( 2) t hat[he] w i l l s uffe ri r r epar abl e harm i f the i nj unct i on i s deni ed; ( 3) thatgr ant i ng pr el i m i naryr el i ef w i l l notr es ul ti n even gr eat erharm t o t he nonmovi ng par t y ; and ( 4) t hat t he publ i c i nt er es tfavor s s uch r el i ef. ” K os Phar m . , I nc. v. A ndr x C orp. , 369 F. 3d 700, 7 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). S m ith ap p ea rs t o ch all en g e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fi ndi ng t hathe fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a l i kel i hood of s ucce s s w i t h r es pectt o hi s fede r al r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s , cl ai m i ng t hathi s m ot i on and the att ache d document s “s poke for th e m se lv e s” (1 1 /2 /0 7 L e tter R e sp . at 3 .) N e v e rth e les s, th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly determ i ned t hat there w as no real evidence indi cat i ng “an int ent t o d i scr i m i nate agai nst P lain tiff o n th e b a sis o f

h is ra c e .” (9 /1 2 /0 7 M e m . O rd e r a t 6 .) A t b e st, h e m e re ly pr es ent ed hi s ow n confus i ng and conc l us orycl ai m s of r aci s m as w el l as var i ous contr actual and s i m i l ardocument s , w hi ch w er e s i l enton t hei rfac e as t o t he mat t erof r ace . L i kew i s e, w e r ej ectSm i t h’ s bal d as s ert i ons of r aci s m , des pot i s m , and s i m i l arki nds of m i s conductagai ns tt he D i s t r i ctJ udge and otherj udi ci al per s onnel as unfounded a nd d e v o id o f

a n yre a l f

a c tu a l su p p o rt. 15

In a d d iti o n , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied S m ith ’s m o tio n b e c a u se o f h is fai l ur e t o es t abl i s h i r r epar abl e harm . A s the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, m anyof hi s al l egat i ons appea r ed t o i m pl i cat e r atheror di narys t at e- l aw i s s ues , i ncl udi ng s l anderand br eac h of contr act . I tw oul d fur t herappea rt hatanyharm he al l egedl yw oul d s uffe rcoul d be r e me d i e d b ya n a wa r d o f mo n e t a r yd a ma g e s . S e e , e . g . , F r a n k ’ s , 8 4 7 F . 2 d a t1 0 2 ( “ [ A] p u relyec o n o m ic i n

jury , co m p en sab le i n m o n ey , ca n n o t sat isfythe irrep ara b le i n jury re q u ire m e n t. . . . ” ) W e th e re f o re c a n n o t sa yth a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g a s to ir re p a ra b le h a rm w a s e rr o n e o u s . III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , Sm i t h’ s appea l fai l s t o pr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on on appea l , and w e ac cor di ngl yw i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum or der . See LA R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. H i s di s qual i fi cat i on m ot i on and mot i on t o s t aythe a p p e a l a re D E N IE D .