2005 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 Third C irc uit 7-26-2005 

# H es s v . K unk le P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1248

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H e s s v . K unk le " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 780. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/780C PS-228 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 . 05- 1248

________________ CH RI STO PH ER H ESS, A ppel l ant v. * JE A N K U N K L E , C o rre sp o n d e n c e C ler k , C a rlisle R e g io n a l M e d ica l C e n ter ; C Y N T H I A H U N T E R , D i r ect or , H eal th I nform at i on M anage m ent , C ar l i s l e R egi onal M ed ical C en ter; S U S A N J. P A R S O N , N o taryP u b li c, C arli sle R eg ion al M ed ical C en ter; J OSEPH A . RI CCI , Le g a l Cou n s e l , Ca r l i s l e Re g i o n a l M e d i c a l Ce n t e r ; DA RRELL D E T H L E F S , A t t o rn e y, A p p o i n t e d b y C o m m o n P l e a s C o u r t , C u m b e r l a n d C o u n ty

* ( A m ended PerC l erk’ s O r derof 2/ 07/ 05)

_____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 ( D . C . C i v. N o. 03- cv- 01876) D i s tr i ctJ udge: Sy l vi a H . R ambo

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) A pr i l 28, 2005 Be f o r e : AL I T O, M CK E E AND AMBR O, CI RC UI T J UDGE

( Fi l ed J ul y26, 2005)

____________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antC hr i s t opherH es s , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the or derAp p r o x i ma t e l yo n e mo n th b e f o r e He s s f

i l e d th i s § 1 9 8 3 a c t i o n , h e f i l e d a 2 8 U. S . C. 1 § 2254 pet i t i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . See H es s v. T enni s , etal . , M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 03- cv0 1 6 6 8 . H e s s ’ h a b e a s p e titio n w a s in itia lly a s s ig n e d to D is tr ic t C o u rtJ u d g e R a m b o . H ow ever , on D ece m ber28, 2004, J udge R ambo re cus ed her s el f fr om H es s ’ habea s pr ocee di ngs beca us e “s om e of the r es pondent s w er e ei ther[her ] cl os e fr i ends orform er a s s o c ia te s .” S ee D istri ct of

C o lum b ia C o u rto f A p p ea ls v. Fe ldm an , 4 6 0 U . S . 4 6 2 (19 8 3 ); 2 Y oungerv. H arr i s , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) ; R ookerv. Fi del i tyT rus tC o. , 263 U . S. 413 (19 2 3 ). 2 o f th e U n ited 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 d e n y in g h is m ot i ons fi l ed pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) and 28 U . S. C . § 455( a) . Forthe r eas ons that fo ll o w , w e w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l as frivo lou s. S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). B e c a u se w e w rite f

o r th e p a rties , w e w ill b rie f lysu m m a riz e o n lyth o se f a c ts es s ent i al t o ourdi s pos i t i on of thi s appea l . I n 2003, H es s i ni t i at ed the under l y i ng 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 acti on i n the D i stri ctC ou rtfor the M i dd l e D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a. H ess 1 a lleg e d th a t Je a n K u n k le, C yn th ia H u n ter , S u sa n J. P a rso n , Jo se p h A . R icc i, an d D a rre ll D ethl efs ( col l ect i vel y , “the def endant s ”) vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tand Fourt eenth A m endment r i ght s dur i ng hi s 2001 t o 2002 pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . H es s al s o as s ert ed a c l ai m of l egal m al pract i ce aga i nstdefe nd ant D ethlefs , w ho had been app oint ed to r epresentH ess i n 2001 dur i ng hi s pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . H es s s oughtcompensa t oryand puni t i ve d am ag es. O n Ju ly2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , af ter all o w ing H ess to am en d h is co m p lai n t, D istri ct C o u rt J udge R ambo ent er ed an or dergr ant i ng the def endant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s forl ack of su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n o n the g rou n d that H ess’ c lai m s w ere b arred b ythe R o o k erF e ld m a n d o c tr in e . H e s s d id n o t f ile a n a p p e a l f

ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s J u ly 2 0 o rd e r. 2T he J anuary11 R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as H es s ’ s econd. H e fi l ed hi s fi r s tuns ucce s s ful 3 R ul e 60( b) m ot i on on D ece m ber23, 2004. 3 O n Ja n u a ry1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , H e ss f iled a m o tio n p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ) in w h ich h e a rg u e d th a t: (1 ) th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f in d in g h is c laim s a g a in st d e f e n d a n ts K unkl e, H unt er , Par s on, and R i cci barr ed bythe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne; and ( 2) as s um i ng thathi s cl ai m s agai ns tD ethl efs w er e barr ed bythe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have pe rm i t t ed hi m t o w i thdr aw thos e cl ai m s r atherthan d is m is s in g h is e n tir e a c tio n . H e s s a ls o f ile d a m o tio n to re c u s e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . 3 § 455( a) , ci t i ng var i ous rul i ngs m ade byJ udge R ambo as e vi dence thats he w as “pr ej udi ced” agai ns thi m . B yor derent er ed on J anuary18, 2005, J udge R ambo deni ed b o th m o ti o n s. H ess h as ti m elyap p ea led th is ord er. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew the deni al of a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on and a j udge’ s deci s i on nott o r ecus e under§ 455( a) forabus e of d iscreti o n . S ee In re C en d an t C o rp. P R ID E S L it ig., 2 3 4 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); S ec u rac o m m C o n su lt ing , Inc . v . S ec u rac o m , Inc . , 2 2 4 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B eca us e H es s ’ appea l l acks ar guabl e mer i ti n l aw orfac t , w e w i l l di s m i s s i tas fr i vol ous pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . See N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 (1 9 8 9 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt w a s c o rre c t th a t H e ss c ited n o p ro p e r b a sis f o r re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ), an d th u s w e f

in d n o a b u se o f

d isc re tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e f u sa l to v a c a te its4

J ul y20, 2004, or der . Si gni fi cant l y , i ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed that“R ul e 60( b) i s nott o be u se d a s a su b stitu te f

o r, o r a ltern a tiv e to , ap p e a l. A p a rtym a yn o t, th e re f o re , inv o k e R u le 60( b) t o avoi d the expi r at i on of the t i m e forappea l . ” H i l l v. M cD erm ott , I nc. , 827 F. 2d 1040, 1042 ( 5th C i r . 1987) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o Page v. Schw ei ker , 786 F. 2d 150, 154 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( not i ng that“w er e the rul e otherw i s e, the t i m e l i m i t at i ons on appea l s e tb yF e d . R. Ap p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , a n d o n mo t i o n s t o a l t e ro ra me n d j u d g me n t s u n d e rF e d . R. C i v. P. 59( e) , w oul d be vi t i at ed”) . I ns ofaras H es s now s eeks r evi ew of the D i s tr i ct Co u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d i s mi s s h i s c o mp l a i n tf o rl a c k o f

s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n , h i s t i me to a p p e a l th a t d e c isio n e x p ire d lo n g b e f o re h e f iled th e R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . H e ss sim p ly cannots eek r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s J ul y20, 2004, or derthr ough an appe al of the d e n ial o f h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . M o re o v e r, to th e e x ten t th a t H e ss a ss e rte d in h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d leg a l er ro r in d ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t, s uch err ordoes notbyi t s el f w arr antthe appl i cat i on of R ul e 60( b) . See Sel kr i dge v. U ni t ed of O m aha Li fe I ns . C o. , 360 F. 3d 155, 166 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng H es s ’ R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. L i kew i s e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng H es s ’ r ecus al m ot i on. U nder§ 455, a j udge mustr ecus e w her e heri m part i al i ty“mi ghtr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. ” 28 U . S. C . § 455( a) . A l though H es s ci t ed var i ous rul i ngs m ade byJ udge R ambo t o s uppor thi s cl ai m thats he w as “pr ej udi ced” agai ns thi m , unfavor abl e rul i ngs do n o tf o rm a n a d e q u a t e b a s i s f o rr e c u s a l . S e e S e c u r a c o mm , 2 2 4 F . 3 d a t2 7 8 . M o r e o v e r , we5

f in d n o th in g in th e re c o rd to su g g e st “ a d e e p -se a ted f a v o ritism o r a n tag o n ism th a t w o u ld m ake f ai rj udgm enti m pos s i bl e. ” Li t ekyv. U ni t ed St at es , 510 U . S. 540, 555 ( 1994) . N or do w e per cei ve anyfac t s fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d concl ude thatthe i m part i al i tyof J udge R ambo m i ghtr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. See Edel s t ei n v. W i l ent z, 81 2 F . 2d 12 8, 13 1 (3d C i r. 19 87 ). A l tho ug h Jud ge R am bo did r ecuse h ers el f from H ess’ pendi ng habea s pet i t i on, s he di d s o becaus e s om e of the r es pondent s named i n thatact i on w er e ei therherfr i ends oras s oci at es . H ow ever , as J udge R ambo expl ai ned, no s uch confl i ctexi s t ed her e. A ccor di ngl y , w e di s cern no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s deni al of H es s ’ r ecus al m ot i on. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l a s f ri v o lo u s .