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 12-5-2008 

# S chneide r v . U SA 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 . 08-2640

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 authori 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 chneide r v

. U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 152. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/152NOT 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- 2640 F REDE RI CK S CHNEI DER, A ppel l ant

v. U N ITE D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ; U . S . D E P T O F H U D , M ult i -Fam i l y ; D IA N E J. J O H N SO N , Fi el d D i r ect or ; W A L T E R E . K R E H E R , D i r ect or ; D E A N J . SA N T A , Pr oj ect M a n a g e r ; BE S T OF L I F E P AR K AP AR T M E NT S ; M AR T I N WOOD, P r e s i d e n t ; S T AN D Y N E R , V i ce Pr es i dent ; M A R V I N M I L L E R , T r eas ur er ; SE Y M O U R R O SE N , C orp. S e c ’ ty ; CL AI RE GOL DB L AT T , Re c o r d i n g S e c ’ ty ; CA RO L E A. KOOT M AN, A dm i ni s tr at or ; K A T H Y T H O M A S, A dm i n. A s s i s t ant ; J O H N R . PE R I N O , C l erk; DO RO THEA AR LOTTA , Cl e r k ; VA NESSA D ON ALD SON , Cl e r k ; SI DN EY C RA NE, T ru s t e e ; HE NR Y C OHE N, T ru s t e e ; HE RB E RT S T E RN , T ru s t e e ; I RV I NG SH E I N FE L D , T rus t ee; R O B E R T K I E J D A N , T rus t ee; M A U R Y B L U M B E R G , T rus t ee

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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 00708) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber2, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber5, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

P E R C UR I AM Fr eder i ck Schnei der , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eydi s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). W e w il l aff irm in p art an d v ac ate in p art th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rde r. Schnei derfi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es , the D epart m entof H ous i ng and U rban D evel opm ent( “H U D ”) , H U D empl oy ees , B es tof Li fe Park A part m ent s , and B est o f L ife o ff

icers an d em p loy ee s. H e a ll eg ed that h e li v ed in the B est o f L ife P ark A part m ent s , w hi ch r ece i ved fe der al fundi ng fr om H U D . Schnei derfur theral l eged thathe fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i th H U D compl ai ni ng thatB es tof Li fe a nd i t s offi cer s and empl oy ees vi ol at ed H U D r egul at i ons . Schnei ders t at ed thatB es tof Li fe i gnor ed “s m okyemi s s i ons spew i ng ” i nto hi s unitfrom a casi no . S chn ei der further com plai ned , am on g o ther things, thatB es tof Li fe r ent ed apa r t m ent s t o i nel i gi bl e t enant s , i m pr oper l yal l ow ed ca s i no e m p lo y e e s to re n t a p a rt m e n ts , a n d k e p t v a c a n t o v e r 1 5 a p a rt m e n ts f o r n e f a ri o u s a c tiv itie s . S c h n e id e r c laim e d th a t H U D e m p lo y e e s c o n sp ire d w ith B e st o f L if e to c o v e r u p th e ir w ro n g f u l ac ts, a n d th a t B e st o f L if e e v icte d h im f

ro m h is a p a rtm e n t in re talia tio n f o r h is f ilin g o f a p re v io u s f

e d e ra l c o m p la in t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d is m is s e d S c h n e id e r’ s c o m p la in t p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned thati tw as w el l - acqua i nt ed w i th Schnei der ’ s cl ai m s , as he hadT he D i s tr i ctC our thad pr evi ous l yal l ow ed Schnei dert o amend hi s compl ai nti n N o. 1 06- 3200 t o as s ertfede r al cl ai m s aft erthe def endant s m oved t o di s m i s s hi s compl ai ntfor l ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. 3 f iled a law su it i n 2 0 0 6 a g a in st th e U n ited S tate s a n d m a n yo f th e sa m e in d iv id u a ls aff i l i at ed w i th B es tof Li fe. See D . N . J . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 03200. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed thatSchnei derhad al s o fi l ed anotheract i on agai ns tthe B es tof Li fe de fenda nt s , the U n ite d S ta te s , H U D , a n d its e m p lo y e e s , w h ic h w a s n e a rl yid e n tic a l to h is p re s e n t a c tio n . S e e D . N .J . C iv . N o . 0 7 -c v -0 3 8 8 7 . In th e se c o n d a c tio n , the D istric t C o u rt w ro te S c h n e id e r a lette r a n d a sk e d h im to amend hi s compl ai ntt o cl ar i fyw hateac h defe ndantal l egedl ydi d t o hi m and how he w as harm ed, not i ng thati tw as unabl e t o det erm i ne w hetherhi s compl ai nts houl d be di s m i s s ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o t ol d Schnei derthat , i f hi s i nt ent w a s to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t in N o . 0 6 -3 2 0 0 , h e sh o u ld n o tifyth e c o u rt so th a t itc o u ld ter m in a te th e se c o n d c a se . In re sp o n se to th e D istric t C o u rt’s le tter, S c h n e id e r v o lu n tar ily d ism iss e d h is c o m p lain t an d m o v e d to f ile a se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in N o . 0 6 -3 2 0 0 to i ncorpor at e the cl ai m s he had r ai s ed i n hi s s econd a ct i on. W hi l e hi s m ot i on t o amend 1 w a s p e n d in g , S c h n e id e r f iled h is p re se n t co m p lain t. O n M arch 7, 20 08 , the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed the defen dan t s’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss S chn ei der’ s am end ed co m plai nt i n N o. 06 -3200 . In that com plai nt, S chn ei der al so c o m p lain e d a b o u t sm o k ye m iss io n s f ro m th e c a sin o s, w h ich h e a lleg e d n e g a tiv e ly i m pact ed hi s heal th. Schnei dercl ai m ed thatthe def endant s , w hi ch i ncl uded fe der al , s t at e,T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o not ed thatthe fa ct s di d nots uppor tan empl oym ent 2 di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m underT i t l e V I I oran equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m , and thatther e w as no p ri v ate c au se o f a cti o n u n d er the O lder A m erican s A ct. In a d d it ion , the D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overfede r al t or tcl ai m s as s ert ed aga i ns tthe fe der al defe nd ants , and decli ned t o ex erci se j uri sdi ct i on ov er Schn ei der’ s st at e l aw cl ai m s. 4 a n d l o c a l e n v i r o n me n t a l a n d h e a l th d e p a r t me n t s , v i o l a t e d h i s c i v i l r i g h t s u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1983, cons pi r ed t o i nt er fer e w i th hi s ci vi l r i ght s , and vi ol at ed “Ti t l e V I I , A ge D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , T i t l e V I I I , O l d e rA m e r i c a n s A c t , T i t l e 3 3 , H a z a r d o u s S u b s t a n c e L i a b i l i ty, T itle V , F id u c ia ry R e s p o n s ib iliti e s , L ia b iliti e s & P e n a ltie s .” A m . C o m p l. a t p a ra . 1 7 . T he D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned thatthi s r eci t at i on of fe der al l aw s fai l ed t o gi ve the defe ndant s fai rnot i ce of hi s fede r al cl ai m s , and atbes tcoul d be des cr i bed as havi ng an in d istin c t ti e to th e f

a c ts a lleg e d in th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. 2 T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o deni ed Schnei der ’ s m ot i on t o amend t he compl ai ntt o add th e c laim s ra ise d in h is s e c o n d a c tio n , n o tin g th a t w h e n h e w a s f irst a f f o rd e d lea v e to amend hi s compl ai ntt o addr es s the j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct , he fa i l ed t o cur e the def i ci ency and s t at e a f

eder al cl ai m . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o found the fut i l i tyof al l ow i ng Schnei der t o amend evi dence d bythe fa ctthathi s new pl eadi ng w as di ffi cul tt o deci pherand in s u f f ic ie n t to p u t th e d e f

e n d a n ts o n n o tic e a s to w h a t la w s th e yh a d a lle g e d ly v io la te d . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed thati thad i nform ed Schnei derthathi s compl ai ntw as uncl ear w h e n h e f

iled it as a se p a ra te a c tio n , b u t h e f a iled to c lar if

yth e c o m p lain t in h is m o tio n to amend. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen di s m i s s ed Schnei der ’ s pr es entcompl ai ntpur s uantt o5

§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned thatSchnei der ’ s pr es entcompl ai ntw as near l yi dent i cal t o t he compl ai nti n N o. 07- 3887, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC ourthad hel d fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m w hen i tdeni ed Schnei der ’ s m ot i on t o amend. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. S c h n e id e r a rg u e s in h is b rie f th a t h is p re se n t co m p lain t is d if f e re n t f ro m h is c o m p lain t in N o . 0 6 -3 2 0 0 , a n d th a t it s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d o n its o w n m e ri ts . T h is case is som ew h at si m il ar to C u rt is v. C it iban k , N . A . , 2 2 6 F . 3 d 1 3 3 (2d C ir . 2000) . T he pl ai nt i ffs i n C ur t i s had amended thei rcompl ai ntonce, and moved t o fi l e a s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt . T he M agi s tr at e J udge deni ed the mot i on t o amend, and the pl ai nt i ffs appea l ed the rul i ng t o t he di s tr i ctcourt . W hi l e thei rappea l w as pendi ng, the p lai n ti ff s filed th eir seco n d am en d ed co m p lai n t as a n ew ac ti o n . T h e d istri ct co u rt aff i r m ed the deni al of the mot i on t o fi l e a s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntbeca us e i tw as u n tim e ly, an d d is m is s e d th e n e w c o m p la in t b e c a u s e it w a s d u p lic a tiv e . T he courtof appe al s r ecogni zed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s pow ert o admi ni s t eri t s docket and di s m i s s a s ui tthati s dupl i cat i ve of a nothers ui ti n fede r al court . I d. at138 ( ci t i ng C ol or ado R i verW at erC ons erv. D i s t . v. U ni t ed St at es , 424 U . S. 800, 817 ( 1976) ) . T he courthel d, how ever , thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng the new com plai nt t o the ext ent the p l ai nti ffs soug ht t o li t i gate events ari si ng aft er the fir st amended compl ai ntw as fi l ed. I d. at140. T he courtexpl ai ned thatthe deni al of the m ot i on t o amend di d notpr ecl ude l i t i gat i on of s uch cl ai m s beca us e the deni al w as noton th e m e rits, an d th e d o c trin e o f c laim p re c lu sio n w o u ld n o t p re c lu d e lit ig a tio n o f e v e n ts6

ar i s i ng aft erthe fi l i ng of the fi r s tcompl ai nt . I d. at139. T he courtfur therhel d thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng thos e cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof the s ame event s as al l eged i n t he fi r s tamended compl ai nt . I d. at140. T he courtexpl ai ned thatthes e cl ai m s w oul d have be en hea r d i f the pl ai nt i ffs had t i m el yr ai s ed them, and that th e p la in tif

f s c o u ld n o t a v o id th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e ird e la yb yf

ilin g a n e w a c tio n . Id . I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ys t at ed thatSchnei der ’ s pr es entcompl ai nt i s near l yi dent i cal t o hi s pr opos ed s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , and the D i s tr i ctC our tt hus d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d ism iss in g th e c laim s th a t S c h n e id e r h a d ra ise d in h is propo sed secon d am end ed co m plai nt. U nli ke in C urt i s, the D i stri ctC ou rtdecided those cl ai m s on t he mer i t s w hen i tdeni ed the mot i on t o amend and found thatSchnei derhad fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. Schnei derm aynotavoi d that ruli n g b yfil ing a n ew ac ti o n . T o the e x tent S ch n eide r disag ree d w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ru lin g , h is re m e d yw a s a n a p p e a l. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , how ever , abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng the pr es ent c o m p lain t to th e e x ten t th a t S c h n e id e r so u g h t to lit ig a te e v e n ts a risin g a f ter th e m o tio n to a m e n d w a s f

iled . S c h n e id e r c laim e d in h is p re se n t co m p lain t th a t h e w a s w ro n g f u lly e v ic te d o n D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , in re ta lia tio n f o r f ilin g h is e a rl ie r f

e d e ra l a c tio n . A l though Schnei deral l eged i n hi s pr opos ed s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntthathe had be en thr eat ened w i th evi ct i on, he di d notas s erta r et al i at i on cl ai m . N ordoes i tappea rthathe coul d have – hi s m ot i on t o amend w as fi l ed on N ovember30, 2007, befor e the evi ct i onal l egedl yoccurr ed. T hus , the deni al of the mot i on t o amend does notpr ecl ude Schnei der

f ro m p u rsu in g th is c laim . S e e C u rtis, 2 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 9 -4 0 (a p p ly in g n o rm a l cla im pr ecl us i on anal y s i s w her e mot i on t o amend i s deni ed) . B eca us e i ti s notcl earthat Schnei derfai l s t o s t at e a r et al i at i on cl ai m , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dert o the extenti tdis m i ssed this cl ai m and rem and for further proceedings. A cc o rdin g ly , w e sh all af firm in p art an d v ac ate in p art th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.

7