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 Third C ir c uit 2-6-2008 

# V ele nt z a s v . Y ates P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4010

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " V ele ntzas v . Y at e s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1636. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/16361

H L D - 55 ( D ece m ber 2007) 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. 07- 4010

________________ SPY RE D O N V ELE N TZA S, A ppel l ant

vs. W ar den S. A . Y A T E S; U L I SE S V A R G A S; FE L I Z , ( FN U ) H eal th Ser vi ces Ad mi n i s tr a t o r ; J . G. E S P AR Z A, As s t . Wa r d e n Op e r a t i o n s ; UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; RO BE RT G. M I GL I OR I NO, D. O. Cl i n i c a l Di r e c t o r ; M I CK Y R AY, R egi onal D i r ect or ; K A T H L E E N H A W K - SA W Y E R , D i r ect orC entr al O ffi ce

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00615) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es III

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d IO P 1 0 .6 D ece m ber21, 2007 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed February6, 2008)

______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________I n B i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of the Feder al B ur eau of 1 N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) , the Supr eme C our tr ecogni zed a pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on t o recov er dam ages ag ai nsta fed eral agen tfor vi olat i on s of co nst i tuti on al ri gh t s. 2 P E R C U R I A M.

T h is i s an ap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f S p yred o n V elen tzas’s m ot i on t o r e- open hi s cas e. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .

I n M ar ch 2004, V el ent zas , a fe der al pr i s oner , i ni t i at ed a Bi vens act i on agai ns tvar i ous pr i s on offi ci al s . V el ent zas al l eged thathe r ece i ved s ub- s t andar d dent al 1 c a re w h ile h o u se d a t th e F e d e ra l C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n in W h ite D e e r, P e n n sy lv a n ia ( FC I - A l l enw ood) . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , adopt i ng the R eportand R ecomm endat i on of the M agi s tr at e J udge, di s m i s s ed hi s compl ai nton M ar ch 17, 2005. O n O ct ober1, 2007, V el ent zas fi l ed a mot i on t o r e- open hi s cas e underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) a n d to re -o p e n th e tim e to f ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f A p p e llate Pr ocedur e 4( a) ( 6) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on and V el ent zas appea l ed.

W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on forabus e of d i s c r e t i o n . S e e B r o w n v . P h i l a . H o u s . A u th . , 3 5 0 F . 3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 2 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . We l i kew i s e r evi ew the deni al of Fed. R . A pp. R . 4( a) ( 6) r el i ef f orabus e of di s cr et i on. See U .S . v . R in a ld i, 4 4 7 F .3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

R e o p e n in g th e p e ri o d in w h ic h to a p p e a l is g o v e rn e d b yR u le 4 (a )( 6 ). U n d e r 4 (a )(6 ), a p a rtym u st e sta b lish th a t h e o r sh e d id n o t re c e iv e n o tice p u rsu a n t to R u leV el ent zas v. U ni t ed St at es , N o. 07- C V - 1255 ( M . D . Pa. fi l ed J ul y11, 2 2 0 0 7 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M ar ch 17, 2005 j udgm entdi d notcompl yw i th the

3 s epar at e j udgm entrul e. See Fed. R . C i v. P. 58( a) . T hus , forR ul e 4( a) purpos es , the ju d g m e n t w a s e n ter e d 1 5 0 d a y s a f ter th e e n tryo f

th e ju d g m e n t o n th e D istric t C o u rt c iv il d o c k e t, o r A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )( 7 )( A )( ii) . 3 77( d) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. M or eover , the 4( a) ( 6) m ot i on m us tbe fi l ed w i thi n 180 day s of the entryof j udgm entorw i thi n 7 day s of the party ’ s r ece i ptof no t i ce, w hichever i s ear l i er. A pp el l ant as sert s that he di d n ot r ecei ve n oti ce t hat hi s case h a d b e e n d ism iss e d u n til h e re c e iv e d a n A u g u st 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n in a more r ece ntl aw s ui the fi l ed i n the s ame cour t . H ow ever , the l as tdayt o fi l e a 4( a) ( 6) 2 m o tio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n F e b ru a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , o r 1 8 0 d a y s a f ter th e e n tryo f

ju d g m e n t. 3 T h e re f o re , th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g R u le 4 (a )( 6 ) r e lie f. 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 the mot i on u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ) o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re . V e len tza s’s o n lya rg u m e n t in su p p o rto f th e 6 0 (b) m o ti o n w as th at he d id n o t r ec eive n o ti ce o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ism iss a l. T h e ru le in th is c irc u it i s c lea r: w h e re th e so le b a sis f o r a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n is a p a rty ’s la c k o f

n o tice , the m o tio n m u st m e e t th e tim e lim itatio n s o f R u le 4 (a ). S e e H a ll v. C m ty . M ent al H eal th C tr . of B eave rC ounty , 772 F. 2d 42, 44 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . A s not ed above, V el ent zas fai l ed t o m eetthe t i m e l i m i t at i ons of R ul e 4( a) , ther efor e the D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l ydeni ed hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on.

Fi nal l y , the docke ts how s thatV el ent zas fi l ed tw o document s aft erthe4

D i s tr i ctC our tcl os ed the ca s e. T he fi l i ng on O ct ober11, 2005, w oul d be a t i m el ym ot i on pur s uantt o R ul e 4( a) ( 6) , how ever , i tdi d notevi nce a n i nt entt o appea l , l etal one an i nt ent t o r eques tr eopeni ng the t i m e t o appea l . T he J une 12, 2006 l ett err eques t i ng an updat e on th e s ta tu s o f

h is c a s e w o u ld b e u n tim e ly u n d e r a n yre le v a n t p ro v is io n o f 4 (a ). A ccor di ngl y , beca us e thi s appea l pr es ent s us w i th no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f

f i r m th e d e c i s i o n o f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t . S e e Th i r d Ci r c u i tL. A. R. 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .