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 Thir d C ir c uit 12-17-2008 

# Ell swor th P e nd let on v

. NEP A C ommunity F ede r 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 . 08-2408

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_2008

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 2008 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 " Ell s wor th P e ndle t on v

. NEP A C ommunity F e de r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 80. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/801 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. 08- 2408

___________ E L L S WORT H P E NDL E T ON, A ppel l ant

vs. N EPA CO M M U N I TY FED ER A L C RE D I T U N I O N & BD O F D I RE CT O RS; OA KV I EW TERRA CE CO ND O A SS OC I ATI ON & BD OF D I RECTO RS, ET AL; S E C R E T A R Y O F S T A T E C O M M O N W E A L T H O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

____________________________________ 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 ( M . D . Pa. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 02170) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N O V E M B E R 24, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S A N D W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed : D ec em b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 )

____________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

E l l s w or t h Pendl et on, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed S tate s D istric t 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 r e late d to h is c iv il righ ts ac ti o n . W e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.2 Pendl et on fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n D i s t r i ctC our tagai ns tdefe ndant s as s ert i ng v a rio u s v io latio n s o f

e q u a l p ro tec tio n o f

th e law , the P e n n sy lv a n ia C o n stitu tio n , an d sta te and fe der al s t atut es bas ed on an a l l eged c om m er ci al l i en thathe had a gai ns tthe defe ndant s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Pendl et on’ s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on, concl udi ng t hathe had notci t ed s t atut es thatw oul d pr ovi de a ba s i s for a c iv il ca u se o f

a c tio n , an d th a t h is c laim s w e re f riv o lo u s a n d so d e v o id o f m e rit as n o t to in v o lv e a f

e d e ra l c o n tr o v e rs y . P e n d le to n ’s a p p e a l o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r w a s d is m is s e d a s u n tim e ly. Pendl et on fi l ed a mot i on i n D i s t r i ctC our ts eeki ng t o change the dat e thathi s not i ce of appea l w as docket ed, as s er t i ng, as he had i n hi s i ni t i al appea l and i n hi s pet i t i on for r ehea r i ng, t hathi s not i ce of appea l w as pos t - m arked on A ugus t22, 2007, w i t hi n t he 30- d a ytim e to a p p e a l. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n , a n d th is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . T he l aw of the ca s e doctr i ne ac t s t o pr ecl ude r evi ew of thos e l egal i s s ues that the c o u rtin a p ri o r ap p ea l actua ll yd ec ided , eith er e x p resslyo r byim p li ca ti o n . In re C i t yof Phi l adel phi a Li t i g. , 158 F. 3d 711, 718 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . A l t hough w e di d not e x p r e s s l yd i s c u s s P e n d l e t o n ’ s a r g u me n tth a th i s o r i g i n a l a p p e a l wa s t i me l y , wh e n we deni ed hi s pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng, w e r ej ect ed the ar gum entbyi m pl i cat i on. T he l aw of the c a s e d o c t r i n e p r e c l u d e s r e v i e w o f t h e a r g u m e n tth a tP e n d l e t o n ’ s e a r l i e ra p p e a l w a s t i m e l y, ort hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng Pendl et on’ s pos t - j udgm entm ot i on, i n l i ghtof th e d a te th a t h e m a ile d h is n o tic e o f a p p e a l to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .3 A ccor di ngl y , w e s hal l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . A l t hough not r equi r ed t o do s o, and conc ededl yi n di ctum , w e conc l ude thatPendl et on’ s or i gi nal c o m p lain t h a d n o m e rit.