2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-14-2013 

# E d w a r d S e m ul k a v

. S t a t e of P e nnsy

l v a ni a

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 12-3989

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" E dw a r d S e m ul k a v

. S t a t e of P e nn s y

lv a ni a " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 1129. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1129

### DLD

- 138 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________
No. 12

- 3989

_____________ EDWARD P. SEMULKA,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; PA BAR ASSOCIATION; PA STATE POLI CE; SHANNON SWORSKI; CHEVRON INC.; UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH; PITTSBURGH POLICE; UNION TOWNSHIP POLICE

__________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civi l No. 12

- cv

- 00713 ) District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone

______________________________________
Submitted on a Motion to Reopen, and for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 28, 2013 Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 14, 2013 )

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM

Edward P. Semulka appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the2



### Western District of Pennsylvania, which granted his motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed his complaint as frivolous. 1 

### We grant his motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and to reopen the appeal and to file a motion to reopen out of time. 2 

### However,

we will dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

We have reviewed the complaint and the District Court’s order dismissing the

complaint. We agree with th e District Court that the complaint is rambling and fails to present

any colorable legal basis for relief. We also agree that his claims are time

- barred by the

applicable statutes of limitations.

In his Argument Supporting Appeal, Semulka does not indica te why he believes the

District Court erred in dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Instead, he simply repeats his

claims and attempts to add new claims, which is not allowed on appeal. In re Reliant Energy

Channelview LP , 594 F.3d 200, 209 (3d Cir. 20 10) . We will thus dismiss the appeal as

frivolous.

1 Although the District Court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), that appears to be a typographical error, as subsection “e” is the section that provides for dismissing a complaint as frivolous.

2 Semulka has de monstrated the inability to pay the fees on appeal. See Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc. , 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). We thus grant the application to proceed IFP. Although a motion to reopen must generally be filed within ten days of the d ate of dismissal, see Third Circuit LAR Misc. 107.2(a), Semulka has filed a motion for leave to file the motion to reopen out of time. He indicates that he has a disability that makes it difficult to comply with the deadlines. In this instance, we will e xcuse the lateness of the motion to reopen. For the same reason, we find that Semulka has shown good cause for failing to timely file his motion to proceed IFP and that reopening is thus warranted.