2006 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 12-20-2006 

# C ain v . Abr axa s 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 . 06-2870

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_2006

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 2006 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 " C ain v . Abr ax as " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 56. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/56NOT 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. 06- 2870

________________ KOR AN C AI N,

A ppel l ant v. CO RN E L L AB RA XAS

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 ( E . D . Pa. . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 04937) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B ruce W . K auff m an

________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober25, 2006 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed : D ece m ber20, 2006 )

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C U R I A M. In this em ploym ent di scr i m i nati on act i on , A pp el l ant, K oran C ai n, app eal s pro se fr om t he or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, grant i ng t he A pp el l ee’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss hi s com plai nt forun t i m el yservice of processT he EE O C ’ s “D i s m i s s al and N ot i ce of R i ght s ” i ndi cat es thatthe EE O C cl os ed 1 C ai n’ s di s cr i m i nat i on fi l e bec aus e ther e w as no bas i s t o concl ude thatthe empl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on s t atut es had bee n vi ol at ed. T he EE O C s entthe di s m i s s al not i ce t o C ai n, C a in ’s a tto rn e y , an d to C o rn e ll A b ra x a s’s c o u n se l. C o rn e ll A b ra x a s a p p a re n tlyin a d v e rte n tlya ttac h e d a c o p yo f a f o rm e r P e n n sy lv a n ia 2 H um an R i ght s C om m i s s i on ( “PH R C ”) / E E O C compl ai ntfi l ed byC ai n i n 2001. T he PH R C / E E O C compl ai ntal l eges di s cr i m i nat orydeni al of pr om ot i ons bas ed on r ace , age, and r et al i at i on, on di ver s e dat es fr om N ovember2000 t o A ugus t13, 2001. T he PH R C / E E O C compl ai ntappea r s t o be w hol l yunr el at ed t o t he cl ai m i n t he curr ent (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 u n d er F ed era l R u le of

C ivil P roc ed u re 4 (m ). O n O ct ober21, 2004, C ai n fi l ed a mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s ( “I FP”) att ac h ing the E E O C ’s “D ism issal and N o ti ce o f R igh ts, ” issu ed o n Ju ly2 8 , 2 0 0 4 . C ain’s 1 pr o s e C om pl ai nt , s i gned byhi m on O ct ober20, 2004, w as r ecor ded as fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ton D ece m ber28, 2004. H e al l eged thati n O ct ober2002 he w as deni ed empl oym entatone of Corne l l A br axas ’ s Phi l adel phi a ac ademi es beca us e of hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d. H e had a ppl i ed foran i nt ernal tr ans ferw hen he l os thi s j ob due t o t he cl os i ng of t he N ew M or gan A cade m y , w her e he w or ked. O n D ece m ber28, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o gr ant ed C ai n’ s I FP m ot i on and i s s ued a s um m ons t o C or nel l A br axas . C ai n r ece i ved not i ce i n ear l yM ar ch 2005 that se rv ice w a s n o t ex e c u ted d u e to a f a u ltya d d re ss . U sin g a d if f e re n t ad d re ss f

o r C o rn e ll A b ra x a s, C a in so u g h t an o th e r su m m o n s o n N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e su m m o n s, iss u e d in J anuary2006, w as s ucce s s ful l yexec ut ed i n February2006. C or nel l A br axas fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on t o di s m i s s , cl ai m i ng thatthe C om pl ai ntw as ti m e-b arred an d that C ain f ail ed to ef

fe ct t im elyserv ice o f p roc ess u n d er R u le 4(m ). 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 C o m p lai n t and to the E E O C ’s dism issal no ti ce issue d in Ju ly2 0 0 4 . In it s co u n ters t at ementof fa ct s , C or nel l A br axas does notdi s put e thati n A ugus t2003, C ai n fi l ed a char ge of di s cr i m i nat i on w i t h r es pectt o t he O ct ober2002 i nci dent , al l egi ng thathe w as deni ed an i nt ernal t r ans ferbeca us e he ha d t w o fel onydrug convi ct i ons i n 1991. See A p p e llee ’s B rie f

, at 2 . In lig h t o f

th e u n d isp u ted f

a c ts, a n d b e c a u se C o rn e ll A b ra x a s d id n o t ra ise th e f

a ilu re to e x h a u st a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a s a g ro u n d f o r d ism iss a l in D is tr ic t C o u rt , w e w ill a s s u m e th a t C a in e x h a u s te d h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . 3 T he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed a s t o C ai n’ s fai l ur e t o s erve pr oces s and di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i t houtpr ej udi ce on thatgr ound. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he di s m i s s al w i t hout p re ju d ice w a s a f

in a l d e c isio n b e c a u se C a in w o u ld b e tim e -b a rre d f ro m re -f ili n g h is compl ai nt . See A hm ed v. D r agovi ch, 297 F. 3d 201, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thatan or derdi s m i s s i ng a cl ai m w i t houtpr ej udi ce i s a fi nal appea l abl e or deri f the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fort hatcl ai m has expi r ed) . W e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derforabus e of d iscreti o n . S ee P etruc ell i v. B o h ri n g er & R atzing er, 46 F . 3 d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T hi s C our thas i nt erpr et ed R ul e 4( m ) as r equi r i ng a courtt o ext end t i m e fors ervi ce w h e r e a p l a i n t i f

f d e m o n s t r a t e s g o o d c a u s e . M c C u r d y v . A m e r . B d . o f P l a s t i c S u r g e r y, 1 5 7 F .3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). H e re , C a in m u st s h o w g o o d f a ith a n d so m e re a so n a b le bas i s fornoncompl i ance w i t hi n t he t i m e s peci fi ed bythe rul e. M C I T el ecom. C orp. v. T el econc ept s , I nc. , 71 F. 3d 1086, 1097 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . I f good ca us e i s nots how n, the di s t r i ctcour tm ay , i n i t s di s cr et i on, deci de w hethert o di s m i s s the ca s e w i t houtpr ej udi ce o r e x te n d th e tim e f

o r s e rv ic e . S e e P e tru c e lli v . B o h ri n g e r & R a tz in g e r, 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 5 . An d “ t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tmu s tc o n s i d e rwh e th e ra n yo t h e rf a c t o r s wa r r a n te x t e n d i n g t i me4

even i f good ca us e w as nots how n. ” I d. at1307. A r evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or deres t abl i s hes thatther e i s an ade quat e l egal a n d f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r th e c o u rt’s g o o d c a u se d e ter m in a tio n . F a ilu re to u n d e rsta n d R u le 4( m ) does notexcus e C ai n’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de t i m el ys ervi ce. T uke v. U ni t ed St at es , 76 F .3 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 6 (7 C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). C a in a rg u e s th a t C o rn e ll A b ra x a s f a iled to sh o w g o o d f

a ith th i n notdi s cl os i ng i t s corr ectaddr es s t o C ai n i n a t i m el ym anner . C ai n does nots aythathe r eques t ed s uch i nform at i on fr om C ornel l A br axas . I n anyevent , C ornel l A br axas i s not o b lig a ted u n d e r R u le 4 to d isc lo se h o w to e f f e c t se rv ice o f

p ro c e ss u p o n it. H o w e v e r, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in f a ili n g to cons i derw hetheranyot herfac t or s w arr ant ed deny i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s even though good caus e w as nots how n. Pet rucel l i , 46 F. 3d at1307. T he D i s t r i ctC our tor derfocus ed ent i r el yon t he fi r s ts t ep of the ana l y s i s , the good ca us e det erm i nat i on. T he pr es ence of s ever al fac t or s i n t hi s cas e w hi ch w oul d fr equent l yw ei gh i n favorof exe r ci s i ng s uch di s cr et i on, i ncl udi ng C ai n’ s pr o s e s t atus and the fa ctthatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run on hi s cl ai m s , hi ghl i ght s t he abs ence of thi s s i gni fi cantand r equi r ed s t ep i n t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s an aly sis. T h u s, w e w il l vac ate the o rde r gra n ti n g C o rne ll A b rax as’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss purs uan tt o R ule 4( m ) and rem and for further proceedings. B eca us e the mat t erw i l l be r emanded and bec aus e C ornel l A br axas r ai s es the i s s ue on appea l , w e w i l l addr es s t he i s s ue of the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . C ornel l A br axas c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e C o m p l a i n tw a s p r o p e r l yd i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e i tw a s t i m e - b a r r e d . We di s agr ee. A l t hough C ai n di d nots peci fya s t atut orybas i s forhi s empl oym entT he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed C ai n IFP st atus. 3 5 di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , t he s ubj ectm at t erof hi s cl ai m , the EE O C ’ s di s m i s s al not i ce, and t he fa ctt hathe r eques t s back w ages , i ndi cat e thathe s eeks r el i ef pur s uantt o T i t l e V I I of th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e . A T itl e V II c o m p lain t m u st b e f iled in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt w ith in 9 0 d a y s o f th e c o m p la in a n t’ s re c e ip t o f th e E E O C ’s d e c is io n . See 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( f) ( 1) ; B ur gh v. B or ough C ounci l of B or ough of M ontr os e, 251 F . 3 d 4 6 5 , 4 7 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T hatC ai n hi m s el f r ece i ved the EE O C D i s m i s s al and N ot i ce of R i ght s i s not di s put ed bec aus e he a t t ache d t he not i ce t o hi s I FP m ot i on. H ow ever , C ai n does nots ay exac t l yw hen he r ece i ved i t . A s s um i ng thathe r ece i ved the EE O C not i ce on J ul y31, 2004, t hr ee da y s aft eri tw as i s s ued, s ee Sei t zi ngerv. R eadi ng H os pi t al and M edi cal C ent er , 165 F. 3d 236, 239 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , C ai n had unt i l O ct ober29, 2004, t o fi l e a t i m el ycompl ai nt . H i s I FP m ot i on w as fi l ed on O ct ober21, 2004. O n D ece m ber28, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the I FP m ot i on, docket ed the C om pl ai ntas fi l ed, and i ssued a sum m on s. C or nel l A br axas ar gues t hatt he C om pl ai nti s t i m e- barr ed bec aus e i tw as fi l ed on D e c e m b e r 2 8 , w e ll af

ter th e 9 0 -d a ylim itatio n p e rio d h a d e x p ire d . W e h a v e h e ld th a t a compl ai nti s cons t ruct i vel yfi l ed as of the dat e thatthe cl erk r ece i ved the compl ai nt , as lon g as th e p lai n ti ff

u lt im atelyp ay s the fil ing fe e o r th e d istri ct co u rtg ran ts th e p lai n ti ff ’s r eques tfori n form a paupe r i s . M cD ow el l v. D el aw ar e St at e Pol i ce, 88 F. 3d 188, 190 ( 3d 3 C i r . 1996) . H er e, t her e i s no entr yi n t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ecor d oron t he D ocketi ndi cat i ngw h e n th e C o m p lain t w a s a c tu a llyre c e iv e d . It i s u n d isp u ted th a t C a in sig n e d h is

C om pl ai nton O ct ober20, 2004, t he s ame dayhe s i gned hi s I FP m ot i on; the I FP m ot i on i t s el f w as fi l ed one da yl at er . G i ven thes e fa ct s , w e conc l ude thatthe C om pl ai ntw as cons t ruct i vel yfi l ed on O ct ober21, 2004, w el l w i t hi n t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he compl ai nti s nott i m e- barr ed. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tand rem and for further proceedings.

6