2009 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 12-9-2009 

# S andr a G a d sde n v

. J e rsey C ty Pub S ch 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 . 09-1558

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_2009

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 2009 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 " S andr a G a d s de n v

. J e r s ey C ty P ub S ch" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 122. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/122NOT 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 os . 08- 4296, 08- 4401, 09- 1558 & 09- 1559

______________________ S ANDR A L . GADS DE N, A ppel l ant v . THE J ERSEY CI TY PU BLI C SCHO OLS

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N os . 08- cv- 03248 & 08- cv- 03249) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es

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

O ct ober28, 2009 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber9, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Am o n g o t h e rc o mp l a i n t s S a n d r a Ga d s d e n f i l e d i n th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , s h e f i l e d t wo compl ai nt s agai ns therform erempl oy er , T he J er s eyC i t yPubl i c School s . B oth cas es2

w e re a ss ig n e d to Ju d g e L in a re s, o n e d o c k e ted a s S a n d ra I. [ sic ] G a d sd e n v . Je rse yC ity Publ i c School s , T he ( D . N . J . C i v. N o. 08- 03248) , and one doc ket ed as Sandr a L. G ads den v. T he J er s eyC i t yPubl i c School s ( D . N . J . C i v. N o. 08- 03249) . T he al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt s t hemsel ves ar e i dent i cal ( a hos tof fe der al and s t at e cons t i tut i onal and s t atut oryvi ol at i ons r el at i ng t o herform erempl oy er ’ s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e her empl oym ent ) , butt he att achment s t o the compl ai nt s di ffe rs l i ght l y . O n J ul y2, 2008, t he D is tr ic t C o u rt d is m is s e d b o th c a s e s . O n J ul y17, 2008, G ads den fi l ed a doc um entcapt i oned “Capt i on § 56. 3 ( 2) D i s qual i fi cat i on of J udges ” i n bot h cas es . I n i t , s he s eemed t o s t at e thatthe gr ounds on w hi ch J udge Li nar es cl os ed anotherof hercas es w er e unfa i rand s he s eemed t o cal l for h is r ec u sal (alth o u g h sh e m ayh av e b ee n d iscu ssing a d iffe ren t D istri ct C o u rtjud g e). I n ear l ySept ember , G ads den fi l ed a l et t ernot i ng thats he had notr ece i ved anyi nform at i on c o n c e rn in g th e re m o v a l o f th e ju d g e s p re sid in g o v e r h e r c a se s. A p p a re n tlyin re latio n to D . N . J . C i v. N o. 08- 03248, s he s t at ed “1 D i s cr i m i nat i on C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- 3248 w as st opened a gai ns tt he N ew J er s eyE ducat i on A s s oci at i on, w hi ch gave m e the r i ghtt o open the ca s e underD i s cr i m i nat i on w i t h the r i ghtt o s ue. I s ubm i t t ed the r i ghtt o s ue l ett er fr om E E O C dat ed J une 19, 2007. J udge J os e L. L i nar es di d notr evi ew the ca s es he w ent a g a in s t th e la w . . . .” L e tte r f ile d S e p t. 2 , 2 0 0 8 , 1 . O n O ct ober17, 2008, G ads den fi l ed a not i ce of appea l i n C . A . N o. 08- 3248, w hi ch s he capt i oned “Sandr a L. G ads den v. N ew J er s eyE ducat i on A s s oci at i on. ” She s t at ed that3

s he s oughtr evi ew of the or der“ent er ed on J ul y17, 2008 and amended on J ul y30, 2008 forR emoval of J udge forC apt i on §56. 3( 2) B i as R ecus al , and §51. 2 N ew T r i al . ” She w ro te a b o u t Ju d g e L in a re s c lo sin g h e r c h a rg e s o f d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st th e “ a b o v e e n tity due t o s epar at e cha r ges agai ns tt he N ew J er s eyE ducat i on A s s oci at i on ( U ni on) . ” A m ong otherthi ngs , G ads den ar gued thats he w as ent i t l ed t o fi l e a di s cr i m i nat i on s ui tbas ed on a vi ol at i on of hercons t i tut i onal and ci vi l r i ght s . She al s o di s cus s ed hercas e bef or e another D istric t C o u rt ju d g e , li stin g h o w th e N e w Je rse yE d u c a tio n A ss o c iatio n p u rp o rte d ly w ro n g e d h e r. O n O ct ober17, 2008, G ads den al s o fi l ed herfi r s tnot i ce of appea l i n D . N . J . C i v. N o. 08- 03249. She s t at ed thats he appe al ed the j udgm ent“ent er ed on J ul y17, 2008 and amended on J ul y30, 2008 forR emoval of J udge forC apt i on §56. 3( 2) B i as R ecus al , and § 5 1 . 2 N ew T ri al. ” In the th ree p ag e d o cu m en t, sh e c o m p lai n ed o f a n o ther D istri ct C o u rt j udge’ s act i ons and r epea t ed a s um m aryof hercl ai m s agai ns therform erempl oy erand uni on. W h ile th e tw o a p p e a ls w e re p e n d in g , p ro c e e d in g s c o n tin u e d in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . O n February10, 2009, J udge Li nar es ent er ed an or deri n D . N . J . C i v. N o. 08- 03248 and D . N . J . C i v. N o. 08- 03249 t o denyG ads den’ s r eques tforhi m t o r ecus e. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a lso sta ted th a t itw o u ld tak e n o a c tio n o n a re q u e st to re o p e n a c a se o n a p p e a l to the ext entt hatG ads den w as r eques t i ng r eopeni ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o di r ect ed G ads den t o fi l e anynew r eques t s forr eopeni ng w i t h a di ffe r entD i s t r i ctC our tj udge.4

G a d s d e n t h e n f

i l e d a s e c o n d n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l i n e a c h D i s t r i c tC o u r tc a s e . A c tu a l l y, s he capt i oned i t“Sandr a L. G ads den v. T he J er s eyC i t yPubl i c School s , Fei ntuch, Por w i ch & Fei ntuch, and N ew J er s eyE ducat i on A s s oci at i on, ” and c r os s - fi l ed i n al l of the ca ses b ef o re Ju d g e L inare s an d an o ther D istri ct C o u rtjud g e. S h e c o m p lai n ed o f “ E rrors [that ] depr i ve[d] [her ] of due pr oces s , ” namel ythatthe C l erk’ s O ffi ce c ont i nued “t o type J er s eyC i tyE ducat i on A s s oci at i on as [her ] J ob. ” She not ed thatthe Educat i on A s s oci at i on w as heruni on. She s um m ar i zed he rcl ai m s agai ns tthe J er s eyC i t yE ducat i on A s s oci at i on and the J er s eyC i t yPubl i c School s . G ads den al s o al l uded t o al l eged e r r or s by the C l erk thatcaus ed hercas es t o be cl os ed and r es ul t ed i n a dat e- s t amp of O ct ober i ns t ead of

J ul yon hernot i ce of

appea l . She r epea t ed hercl ai m s of bi as on t he partof the D is tr ic t C o u rt ju d g e s , to o . O urfi r s tques t i on i s w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on overherfi r s ts etof appe al s ( the appea l s fr om t he di s m i s s al of hercompl ai nt s ) . U pon r evi ew , w e conc l ude thatthe ans w er i s no. T he t i m e l i m i tof R ul e 4( a) ( 1) of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e for c omm e nc i ng a n a pp e a l i s mand a t orya nd j ur i s di c t i on a l . Se e Bow l e s v. Rus s e l l , 55 1 U. S. 2 0 5 , 2 0 8 -1 4 (2 0 0 7 ); B ro w d e r v . D ir e c to r, D e p ’t o f C o rr e c tio n s , 4 3 4 U .S . 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 (1 9 7 8 ). A n o tice o f

a p p e a l in a c iv il ca se in w h ich th e U n ited S tate s is n o t a p a rtyis tim e lyif it i s f i l e d wi th i n 3 0 d a y s o f

t h e e n t r yo f

t h e o r d e ro rj u d g me n tb e i n g a p p e a l e d . S e e F e d R. A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued i t s or derdi s m i s s i ng G ads den’ s compl ai nt s on J ul y2, 2008. G ads den fi l ed herfi r s tnot i ces of appe al on O ct ober17, 2008, m or e than 30G a d sd e n a lso se e k s to c h a ra c ter ize a n e a rlier f ili n g a s a n o tice o f

a p p e a l an d /o r to 1 b lam e p e rso n n e l in th e C ler k ’s O f f ice f o r a n e rro r in d a te- sta m p in g h e r n o tice o f a p p e a l; h o w e v e r, h e r a rg u m e n ts a re n o t s u p p o rt e d b yre c o rd e v id e n c e . 5 day s l at er . A ccor di ngl y , w e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on overherunt i m el yappea l s fr om t he dis m i ssal s of he r D i stri ctC ou rtcases. 1 We tu r n n o w t o G a d s d e n ’ s s e c o n d s e to f a p p e a l s i n th i s c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e . We pr el i m i nar i l yaddr es s a j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue. T o w i t , the D i s tr i ctC our trul ed on the appar entr ecus al m ot i on w hi l e G ads den’ s fi r s tappea l s w er e pendi ng. G ener al l y , “the fi l i ng of a not i ce of

appea l di ves t s t he di s t r i ctcour tof j ur i s di ct i on overthe ca s e pendi ng di s pos i t i on of the appe al . ” See V enen v. Sw eet , 758 F. 2d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( ci t i ng G ri g g s v . P ro v id e n t C o n s u m e r D is c o u n t C o ., 4 5 9 U .S . 5 6 , 5 8 (1 9 8 2 ) ( p e r c u ri a m )) . H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notl os e j ur i s di ct i on i n t hi s cas e bec aus e G ads den a p p e a le d f

ro m a n o rd e r t h a t c o u ld n o lo n g e r b e a p p e a le d . S e e V e n e n , 7 5 8 F .2 d a t 1 2 0 . U pon r evi ew , w e w i l l aff i r m i n eac h cas e the or derdeny i ng G ads den’ s r eques tfor r ecus al . T o t he ext entt hatG ads den w as s eeki ng J udge Li nar es ’ s r ecus al , r ecus al w as not nece s s arybeca us e a r eas onabl e per s on, w i t h know l edge of the r el evantfac t s and circu m stan ce s, w o u ld n o t do u b t th e D istri ct C o u rtjud g e’s im p arti ali ty . S ee In re K ens i ngt on I nt ’ l L t d. , 368 F. 3d 289, 301 & n. 12 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; E del s t ei n v. W i l ent z, 812 F .2 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). I n concl us i on, fort he r eas ons gi ven above , w e w i l l di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on G ads den’ s cons ol i dat ed ca s e t o t he ext entthati tr el at es t o t he appe al s fr om the D i s t r i ct6

C o u rt ’s ord ers o f Ju ly2 , 2 0 0 8 (C . A . N o . 0 8 -42 9 6 an d C . A . N o . 0 8 -44 0 1 ). W e w il l aff irm th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s o r d e ro f F e b ru a r y1 0 , 2 0 0 9 ( a p p e a l e d i n C. A. No . 0 9 - 1 5 5 8 a n d C. A. N o . 0 9 -15 5 9 ).