2007 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 5-29-2007 

# Field s v . U SA 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 . 06-4020

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_2007

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 2007 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 " F ie ld s v . U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1060. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/10601

BL D- 2 0 6 NOT 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 S. 06- 4020, 06- 4355 & 06- 4481

________________ PA TR I CI A A . FI ELD S, A ppel l ant

vs. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; J OA N G AR NER ; CH RI STOPHER P. BO YLE

____________________________________ 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 ( D . C . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00089) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J a n E . D u b o is

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) A pr i l 26, 2007 B efor e: M cK ee, Fuent es and W ei s , C i r cui tJ udges (F il ed : M ay2 9 , 2 0 0 7 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

Pat r i ci a A . Fi el ds , pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i 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 d ism iss in g h e r C o m p lain t th a t so u g h t toT h e U n ite d S ta te s w a s a n a m e d p a rt yin th e F ie ld s v . S c h a e f f e r c a s e . 1 G a rn e r re p re se n ted th e f e d e ra l d e f

e n d a n ts a n d B o y le r e p re se n ted th e H o rsh a m T o w n sh ip defe ndant s i n t hatcas e.

T h e c h ec k at i ssu e w as f o r $5 0 0 . F iel d s d o es n o t dispu te B o y le’s 2 as s er t i on t hats he ca s hed the $500 che ck on J une 15, 2005 

### . Fi el ds al s o r ece i ved another c h e c k , m a d e o u t to “ P a tricia A . F ield s,” in th e a m o u n t o f $ 3 5 0 0 , w h ich is n o t at iss u e in t hi s cas e. 2 r eopen a nd enfor ce a s et t l ementagr eementforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and deny i ng herm ot i on forj udgm ent . Fi el ds al s o appea l s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s deny i ng h e r “ e m e rg e n c ym o tio n f o r re stra in in g o rd e rs a n d ju d g m e n t f o r se v e n h u n d re d a n d six ty fi ve mi l l i on dol l ar s fi l ed i n t he M ont gom eryC ount yC our t hous e Pur s uantt o R ul e 206. 7- 1” and he rm ot i ons t o pr ocee d on appea l i n form a paupe r i s ( I FP) a nd t o s t aythe mat t er p e n d in g a p p e a l.

In O ctob er 2 0 0 5 , F iel d s filed a C o m p lai n t i n the M o n tgo m eryC o u n tyC o u rt of C om m on Pl eas agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es , J oan G arner , E s q. , and C hr i s t opherB oy l e, E s q . , s e e k i n g e n f

o r c e me n to f

t h e s e t t l e me n ts t i p u l a t i o n i n F i e l d s v . S c h a f f e re ta l . , Ci v . A. N o . 0 3 -0 2 1 5 0 (E .D . P a . Ju l 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ). F ield s c laim e d th a t all o f th e d e f e n d a n ts 1 d e lib e ra telyv io late d th e stip u latio n f o r c o m p ro m ise d se ttl e m e n t b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n ts r efe r r ed t o heras Pat r i ci a Fi el ds , i ns t ead of “Patr i ci a A . Fi el ds , ” on fi r s ts ett l ementchec k s he r ece i ved i n par t i al paym entof the t ot al s et t l ementof $4, 000. She al s o fi l ed a 2

“ m o tio n f

o r ju d g m e n t” in th e C o m m o n P lea s C o u rt, cla im in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts comm i t t ed “i dent i t yt heft . ” The U ni t ed St at es and G arnerr emoved t he mat t ert o D i s t r i ctO n M ay11, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Fi el ds ’ s m ot i on t o r emand t he 3 m at t ert o s t at e court . T o t he ext entthatFi el ds appea l s the M ay11 or der , w e conc l ude that her app eal l acks an yarguab l e l egal basi s. 3 C our t . B oy l e then fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the ac t i on forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w h ich re lief

c a n b e g ra n ted p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il Pr ocedur e. 3 T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the C om pl ai nts ua s pont e forl ack of s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatthe courtor derdi s m i s s i ng the act i on i n C i v. A . N o. 03- 02150 di d noti ncorpor at e the s ett l ements t i pul at i on and di d not ot herw i s e expr es s an i nt entt o r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on overFi el ds ’ s cas e oroverthe t erm s of t he s et t l ementagr eement . A l t ernat i vel y , as s um i ng ar guendo thati thad s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on overt he mat t er , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatFi el ds ’ s C om pl ai ntand mot i on lac k e d m e rit. In so ru lin g , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t F ield s f a iled to sh o w g o o d c a u se to s etas i de orm odi fyt he di s m i s s al or derent er ed i n 2005 underFed. R . C i v. P. 41( b) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o hel d t hatno m i s t ake ornew l ydi s cover ed evi dence exi s t ed w arr ant i ng vaca t i on of j udgm enti n Fi el ds v. Schaef ferunderR ul e 60( b) beca us e Fi el ds ’ s al l egat i on t hatt he che ck w as m ade outt o heri ncorr ect l ydi d notamount t o fr aud, m i s r epr es ent at i on, orm i s conduct . I n an or dert hatw as partof i t s opi ni on, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the di s m i s s al m ot i on, deni ed Fi el d’ s m ot i on forj udgm ent( cons t rued bythe D i s t r i ctC our tas a m o tio n b ro u g h t p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (c )), a n d d ism iss e d th e m a tter w ith pr ej udi ce. A ft ert he ca s e w as di s m i s s ed, the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Fi el ds ’ s m ot i ons forA l t hough i tappea r ed i ni t i al l ythatthe appe al w as unt i m el y , upon fur ther 4 r evi ew w e conc l ude thatt he appe al i s t i m el yfi l ed. See R ul es 58( a) and ( b) ( 2) ( B ) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e; I n r e C endantC orp. Secur i t i es L i t i gat i on, 454 F. 3d 235, 2 4 3 -2 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t an o rd e r c o n tain in g a n e x ten siv e d isc u ss io n o f f a c ts an d p roc ed u ral hist o ryis no t a sep ara te j u d g m en t w ith in the m ea n ing o f R u le 58 (a)). 4 t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or der s ( T R O ) , t o pr ocee d I FP on appeal , and fora s t aypendi ng appea l . Fi el ds has appea l ed al l of thes e or der s and herappea l s have be en cons ol i dat ed. 4

W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Fi el ds has been gr ant ed l eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on appea l . W e mustacc eptas true the fac tual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntand al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatcan be dr aw n fr om t hem . N am i v. F auv er, 82 F . 3d 63 , 65 (3d C i r. 19 96 ). T his C ou rti s r equ i red t o d i sm i ss an i n form a paupe r i s appea l under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( I ) w her e none of the l egal p o ints i s arg u ab le on it s m erit s. S ee N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U . S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ).

F o r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s s e t f o rth b yth e D istric t C o u rt in its opi ni on i s s ued M ay22, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on over F i el ds’s C om plai nt and prop erl ycon cl ud ed that , even assum i ng that j uri sdi ct i on exis t s, t he C om pl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed bythe D i stri ctC ou rti n it s opini on , F i el ds’s m oti on for j ud gm ent w as properl yden i ed. B ecause F ield s f a iled sh o w a lik e lih o o d o f p re v a ili n g o n th e m e rits in D istric t C o u rt o r o n a p p e a l, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng Fi el ds ’ s m ot i ons byor der s ent er ed Sept ember20 and O ct ober11, 2006.

F i e l d s h a s n o a r g u a b l e l e g a l b a s i s u p o n wh i c h t o a p p e a l . Ac c o r d i n g l y , wew i l l di s m i s s t hi s appea l pur s uantt o § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( I ) . See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d

2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). F ield s’s m o tio n “ to re m a n d b a c k to D istric t C o u rt f o r im m e d iate t r i al ” i s deni ed.



### 5