NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 22-1027 

__________ 

JIMI ROSE, 

 Appellant 

v. 

HOFFMAN INSURANCE CONSULTANTS, LLC; BASHKIM (BOBBY) HUSENAJ; 

MARK HOFFMAN; RYAN STOCKER 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-02225) 

District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky 

____________________________________ 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

March 3, 2023 

Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: March 14, 2023) 

___________ 

OPINION*

___________ 

PER CURIAM 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2 

 This is the third appeal that pro se appellant Jimi Rose has brought before us in 

connection with this civil action, which concerns allegations of discrimination related to a 

dispute over an insurance policy that covered certain real property. This time, he appeals 

from the District Court’s September 2021 judgment, which denied his second postjudgment attack on the District Court’s July 2018 judgment dismissing his third amended 

complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s September 

2021 judgment. 

I. 

 Rose commenced this civil action in the District Court in 2016. In July 2018, the 

District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Rose’s third amended 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied his motion to 

file a fourth amended complaint. The District Court liberally construed the third 

amended complaint, which contained “rambling, stream-of-conscious narrative,” (Dist. 

Ct. Op. entered July 18, 2018, at 3), as raising both federal and Pennsylvania-state-law 

claims, and it explained why each one of them failed to state a viable claim. In January 

2019, we summarily affirmed that judgment for substantially the reasons provided by the 

District Court. See C.A. No. 18-2736. 

 Rose then returned to the District Court, filing several post-judgment motions. He 

argued, among other things, that he had not raised “State Court” (read: state-law) issues 

in the District Court, and he moved to strike the District Court’s July 2018 judgment to 

the extent that it addressed those state-law issues. The District Court denied those postjudgment motions in January 2020, and we summarily affirmed that denial in July 2020. 
3 

See C.A. No. 20-1284. In doing so, we concluded that, to the extent Rose’s motion to 

strike could be construed as a motion for relief from the District Court’s July 2018 

judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6), such relief 

was not warranted. We explained that Rose “has not shown that the [July 2018] 

judgment is void or that extraordinary circumstances exist,” and we noted that he “could 

have raised in his appeal [in C.A. No. 18-2736] his arguments that the District Court 

should not have addressed any state law claims.” (July 29, 2020 Order in C.A. No. 20-

1284, at 2.) 

Undeterred, in October 2020, Rose returned to the District Court yet again, filing a 

“Motion for Special Relief Pursuant to Manifest Injustice Due to this Honorable Court’s 

[July 2018] Ruling.” (Dist. Ct. docket # 174.) In that motion, Rose once again sought to 

disturb the District Court’s July 2018 judgment, reiterating his argument that he had not 

raised state-law claims in this case. The District Court denied that motion in September 

2021, and this appeal followed. 1

1 In cases like this one, a litigant generally must file his notice of appeal within 30 days of 

the entry of the final order being appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Here, Rose did 

not file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the District Court’s September 

2021 order. But this appeal is nevertheless timely, for the District Court subsequently 

granted his request to reopen the time to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(6), and his notice of appeal was filed before the expiration of the 14-day 

reopening period authorized by Rule 4(a)(6).
4 

II.2

 In Rose’s appeal in C.A. No. 20-1284, we affirmed the District Court’s denial of 

his first round of post-judgment attacks on the District Court’s July 2018 judgment. We 

see no reason to reach a different result in this second round. 3

 As we indicated in C.A. 

No. 20-1284, the time for Rose to argue that the District Court should not have addressed 

any state-law claims was when he appealed from the July 2018 judgment in C.A. No. 18-

2736.4

 We cannot conclude that his being foreclosed from pursuing that argument now 

would somehow constitute a “manifest injustice.” In view of the above, we will affirm 

the District Court’s September 2021 judgment.5

2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Ohntrup v. 

Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

3 It appears from the District Court’s docket that a copy of the District Court’s September 

2021 order was not mailed to Rose immediately after that order’s entry. And when a copy 

was mailed to him a few days later, it appears that it may have been mailed to the wrong 

address due to an error on the District Court’s docket concerning his street address. 

Although Rose takes issue with those mailing issues, we cannot conclude that they reflect 

that the District Court is biased against him. Nor did those mailing issues otherwise

prejudice Rose, as he has been able to fully litigate this appeal.

 

4 In C.A. No. 18-2736, rather than argue that the District Court should not have addressed 

any state-law claims, Rose appeared to argue the merits of those claims. (See, e.g., Rose’s 

Dec. 17, 2018 “response” filed in C.A. No. 18-2736, at 8-9 (“[T]he [District] Court failed to 

uphold the laws for the State of Pennsylvania.”); Rose’s second “response” filed on Jan. 2, 

2019, in C.A. No. 18-2736, at 4-5 (claiming that “the Judge in the [District] Court 

completely and totally[] ignored the law on contracts for the State of Pennsylvania”).

5 Rose’s request to quash the motion to summarily affirm filed by three of the appellees is 

denied. The motion to summarily affirm is denied, too, as is those appellees’ request to 

impose a filing injunction against Rose. That said, we caution Rose that he could face the 

imposition of filing restrictions and/or other sanctions in this Court if he continues to bring 

repetitive and/or meritless challenges related to the proceedings at District Court Case No. 

5:16-cv-02225.