NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3415

___________

RICHARD SNYDER,

Appellant

v.

CAROLYN SWANSON, Personal Representative of Estate of George Swanson;

ROBERT B. SWANSON

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil Action No. 10-cv-00284)

District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

___________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 22, 2011

Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 25, 2011)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Richard Snyder appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware dismissing his civil action. On April 8, 2010, Snyder filed his action 
2

in District Court, relating to a matter originating in the Circuit Court of Maryland. On 

April 20, 2010, the District Court ordered Snyder’s document, docketed as a notice of 

removal, stricken from the docket. Referencing an April 14, 2010 order entered in 

D. Del. Civ. No. 09-cv-00025, which enjoined Richard and Marion Snyder from filing 

additional actions regarding their court proceedings in Maryland without prior 

authorization, the District Court ordered Snyder to file a motion for leave to file, and to 

attach a copy of the order to the motion. The District Court warned that failure to follow 

the requirements specified in the April 14, 2010 order would result in dismissal of the 

case. A copy of the April 14, 2010 order appears in the record as an attachment to the 

District Court’s April 20, 2010 order, and it summarizes the Snyders’ long history of 

proceedings in numerous courts, challenging matters arising from a Maryland bankruptcy

proceeding that began in 1999.1 On July 13, 2010, the District Court dismissed the case, 

noting that Snyder had failed to comply with the April 20, 2010 order.2 Snyder appeals. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

As Snyder notes in his informal brief, his case was filed on April 8, 2010, but the 

order imposing filing restrictions on the Snyders was filed later, on April 14, 2010. 

Snyder’s argument, as we understand it, is that the District Court erred in enforcing the 

 

1

The Snyders appealed the dismissal of their case in D. Del. Civ No. 09-cv-00025, but 

they did not separately appeal the later-entered injunction order. We affirmed the District 

Court’s dismissal on December 15, 2010 (C.A. No. 10-2048).

2

In the meantime, on May 11, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The 
3

injunction retroactively to a case that already had been filed before the injunction was 

issued. Upon review of the record, we agree. In issuing the injunction, the District Court 

found that the Snyders failed to show good cause why they should not be enjoined from 

filing any “further” cases as described in the order. Also, under the terms of the 

injunction order, the clerk’s office was directed not to accept any filing fees or specified 

forms in connection with a motion for leave to file, unless leave to file was granted. In 

this case, the case had been opened, with the filing fee paid, before the Snyders were 

enjoined from initiating future cases covered by the terms of the injunction.

To the extent that Snyder raises arguments challenging the propriety of the 

injunction order itself, or any other arguments relating to other cases or appeals, those 

matters are not properly before us. We will not address those issues.

For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the order of the District Court and 

remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the merits of the underlying 

action.

 

District Court did not rule on the motion.