2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-13-2015

Derek Jarvis v. Mary D'Andrea

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This March 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 2015 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

"Derek Jarvis v. Mary D'Andrea" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 252.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/252
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3849

___________

DEREK N. JARVIS,

Appellant

v.

MARY E. D’ANDREA, Clerk United States District Court Middle District of 

Pennsylvania

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-14-cv-01492)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 12, 2015

Before: FISHER, KRAUSE and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 13, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

PER CURIAM

Derek N. Jarvis, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s August 27, 

2014, order dismissing his in forma pauperis civil rights lawsuit. We will affirm the 

District Court’s order. 

Jarvis’s case arises out of an earlier lawsuit, Jarvis v. Analytical Laboratory 

Services, No. 12-0574 (M.D. Pa. 2012). After Jarvis’s pro se complaint in that earlier 

action was dismissed, he filed a motion to reinstate his case, which the District Court 

denied on November 14, 2012. He then filed a notice of appeal to this Court; we 

concluded that his appeal was untimely and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. See C.A. 

No. 13-2416. In July 2014, Jarvis initiated the present action, bringing claims against 

Mary E. D’Andrea, the former Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania. He alleged that the Clerk’s Office failed to provide him 

with a copy of the November 14, 2012 order and failed to post the order to the judicial 

website Jarvis used to review orders issued in his case, resulting in his untimely appeal. 

His complaint included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was deprived of 

due process and equal protection. 

The Magistrate Judge screened Jarvis’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

and issued a report and recommendation that included the following recommendations: 

(1) Jarvis’s complaint should be construed as a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather than a 

section 1983 action, as it brings claims against a federal official; (2) Jarvis’s Bivens
3

claims against D’Andrea are impermissibly based on a theory of respondeat superior; (3) 

any state law negligence claims against D’Andrea are barred by the Federal Tort Claims 

Act; and (4) D’Andrea is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. On August 27, 

2014, the District Court adopted the report and recommendation, dismissed Jarvis’s 

complaint with prejudice, and closed the case. This appeal followed. 

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We exercise 

plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). 

Jarvis raises four issues on appeal, two of which merit discussion.2 First, he 

argues that the District Court erred in construing his complaint as a Bivens action, rather 

than an action arising under section 1983. Second, he argues that the D’Andrea is not 

entitled to immunity from his claims. 

As the Magistrate Judge explained, a Bivens action is the “federal equivalent” of 

the section 1983 cause of action against state actors, and will lie where the defendant has 

violated the plaintiff’s rights under color of federal law. Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 

 

1

Jarvis filed his notice of appeal on September 5, 2014, and filed a motion for 

reconsideration that same day. The District Court denied his motion for reconsideration 

on January 9, 2015. Accordingly, Jarvis’s notice of appeal became effective as to the 

District Court’s August 27, 2014 order dismissing his case as of that date. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). However, we lack jurisdiction over the District Court’s denial of 

Jarvis’s motion for reconsideration, as Jarvis has not separately appealed it. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

2 We have considered appellant’s remaining claims but conclude that they are meritless 
4

F.3d 789, 800 (3d Cir. 2001); see also Paton v. La Prade, 524 F.2d 862, 871 (3d Cir. 

1975) (“a Bivens -type cause of action is the federal counterpart to claims under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983”). Here, Jarvis’s allegations arose in the context of D’Andrea’s position as 

a federal official; accordingly, his complaint was properly classified as a Bivens action. 

Moreover, we agree with the District Court that Jarvis’s claims against D’Andrea were 

based on a theory of respondeat superior, which cannot form the basis of a Bivens action. 

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675-77 (2009). Accordingly, we need not reach the 

issue of D’Andrea’s immunity, but note that we agree that D’Andrea was entitled to 

immunity in her position as clerk of court, for the reasons given by the District Court. 

Finally, under the circumstances of this case, the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying leave to amend on the grounds of futility. See Grayson v. Mayview 

State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

 

and warrant no further discussion.