2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-14-2013

Edward Semulka v. State of Pennsylvania

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3989

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Edward Semulka v. State of Pennsylvania" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1129.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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DLD-138 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 POLICE; 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. Civil 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 the 
2

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 the 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 indicate 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. 2010). 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 demonstrated 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 date 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 excuse 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.