2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-9-2009

Sandra Gadsden v. Jersey Cty Pub Sch

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-1558

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

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 2009 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

"Sandra Gadsden v. Jersey Cty Pub Sch" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 122.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/122
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________________

Nos. 08-4296, 08-4401, 09-1558 & 09-1559

______________________

SANDRA L. GADSDEN,

 Appellant

v.

 THE JERSEY CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action Nos. 08-cv-03248 & 08-cv-03249)

District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 28, 2009

Before: SMITH, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 9, 2009)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Among other complaints Sandra Gadsden filed in the District Court, she filed two

complaints against her former employer, The Jersey City Public Schools. Both cases
2

were assigned to Judge Linares, one docketed as Sandra I. [sic] Gadsden v. Jersey City

Public Schools, The (D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-03248), and one docketed as Sandra L. Gadsden

v. The Jersey City Public Schools (D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-03249). The allegations in the

complaints themselves are identical (a host of federal and state constitutional and

statutory violations relating to her former employer’s decision to terminate her

employment), but the attachments to the complaints differ slightly. On July 2, 2008, the

District Court dismissed both cases. 

On July 17, 2008, Gadsden filed a document captioned “Caption § 56.3 (2)

Disqualification of Judges” in both cases. In it, she seemed to state that the grounds on

which Judge Linares closed another of her cases were unfair and she seemed to call for

his recusal (although she may have been discussing a different District Court judge). In

early September, Gadsden filed a letter noting that she had not received any information

concerning the removal of the judges presiding over her cases. Apparently in relation to

D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-03248, she stated “1 Discrimination Civil Action No. 08-3248 was st

opened against the New Jersey Education Association, which gave me the right to open

the case under Discrimination with the right to sue. I submitted the right to sue letter

from EEOC dated June 19, 2007. Judge Jose L. Linares did not review the cases he went

against the law . . . .” Letter filed Sept. 2, 2008, 1. 

 On October 17, 2008, Gadsden filed a notice of appeal in C.A. No. 08-3248, which

she captioned “Sandra L. Gadsden v. New Jersey Education Association.” She stated that
3

she sought review of the order “entered on July 17, 2008 and amended on July 30, 2008

for Removal of Judge for Caption §56.3(2) Bias Recusal, and §51.2 New Trial.” She

wrote about Judge Linares closing her charges of discrimination against the “above entity

due to separate charges against the New Jersey Education Association (Union).” Among

other things, Gadsden argued that she was entitled to file a discrimination suit based on a

violation of her constitutional and civil rights. She also discussed her case before another

District Court judge, listing how the New Jersey Education Association purportedly

wronged her. 

On October 17, 2008, Gadsden also filed her first notice of appeal in D.N.J. Civ.

No. 08-03249. She stated that she appealed the judgment “entered on July 17, 2008 and

amended on July 30, 2008 for Removal of Judge for Caption §56.3(2) Bias Recusal, and

§51.2 New Trial.” In the three page document, she complained of another District Court

judge’s actions and repeated a summary of her claims against her former employer and

union.

While the two appeals were pending, proceedings continued in the District Court. 

On February 10, 2009, Judge Linares entered an order in D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-03248 and

D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-03249 to deny Gadsden’s request for him to recuse. The District

Court also stated that it would take no action on a request to reopen a case on appeal to

the extent that Gadsden was requesting reopening. The District Court also directed

Gadsden to file any new requests for reopening with a different District Court judge.
4

Gadsden then filed a second notice of appeal in each District Court case. Actually,

she captioned it “Sandra L. Gadsden v. The Jersey City Public Schools, Feintuch,

Porwich & Feintuch, and New Jersey Education Association,” and cross-filed in all of the

cases before Judge Linares and another District Court judge. She complained of “Errors

[that] deprive[d] [her] of due process,” namely that the Clerk’s Office continued “to type

Jersey City Education Association as [her] Job.” She noted that the Education

Association was her union. She summarized her claims against the Jersey City Education

Association and the Jersey City Public Schools. Gadsden also alluded to alleged errors by

the Clerk that caused her cases to be closed and resulted in a date-stamp of October

instead of July on her notice of appeal. She repeated her claims of bias on the part of the

District Court judges, too. 

Our first question is whether we have jurisdiction over her first set of appeals (the

appeals from the dismissal of her complaints). Upon review, we conclude that the answer

is no. The time limit of Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for

commencing an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

205, 208-14 (2007); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). 

A notice of appeal in a civil case in which the United States is not a party is timely if it is

filed within 30 days of the entry of the order or judgment being appealed. See Fed R.

App. P. 4(a)(1). The District Court issued its order dismissing Gadsden’s complaints on

July 2, 2008. Gadsden filed her first notices of appeal on October 17, 2008, more than 30
 Gadsden also seeks to characterize an earlier filing as a notice of appeal and/or to 1

blame personnel in the Clerk’s Office for an error in date-stamping her notice of appeal;

however, her arguments are not supported by record evidence. 

5

days later. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over her untimely appeals from the

dismissals of her District Court cases.1

We turn now to Gadsden’s second set of appeals in this consolidated case. We

preliminarily address a jurisdictional issue. To wit, the District Court ruled on the

apparent recusal motion while Gadsden’s first appeals were pending. Generally, “the

filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the case pending

disposition of the appeal.” See Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 1985) (citing

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)). 

However, the District Court did not lose jurisdiction in this case because Gadsden

appealed from an order that could no longer be appealed. See Venen, 758 F.2d at 120. 

Upon review, we will affirm in each case the order denying Gadsden’s request for

recusal. To the extent that Gadsden was seeking Judge Linares’s recusal, recusal was not

necessary because a reasonable person, with knowledge of the relevant facts and

circumstances, would not doubt the District Court judge’s impartiality. See In re

Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 & n.12 (3d Cir. 2004); Edelstein v. Wilentz, 812

F.2d 128, 131 (3d Cir. 1987). 

In conclusion, for the reasons given above, we will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

Gadsden’s consolidated case to the extent that it relates to the appeals from the District
6

Court’s orders of July 2, 2008 (C.A. No. 08-4296 and C.A. No. 08-4401). We will affirm

the District Court’s order of February 10, 2009 (appealed in C.A. No. 09-1558 and C.A.

No. 09-1559).