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 12-30-2008 

# Rob e r t Hu sick v

. Alghn y C ty P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2142

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro be r t Husick v

. Al ghn y C ty " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 29. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/291 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. 08- 2142

___________ RO BE RT J . HUS I CK ,

A ppel l ant vs. ALLEG HEN Y C OU NTY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 01175) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N or a B . Fi s cher

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber29, 2008 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber30, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

R ober tH us i ck appe al s fr om t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to d ism iss h is c o m p lain t. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e w ill v a c a te t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal order and rem and for further proceedings.2 O n A ug ust28 , 20 07 , H usi ck, proceed i ng pro se, fi l ed an act i on against A l l eghenyC ount yal l egi ng t hatdi s cr i m i nat i on on acc ountof r ace , genderand age pl ay ed a parti n hi s t erm i nat i on fr om t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l eghenyC ount yw her e he had bee n empl oy ed foral m os tt w enty - ni ne y ear s . I n an or derent er ed on D ece m ber27, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw arned H us i ck thathi s compl ai ntw oul d be di s m i s s ed w i t hout pr ej udi ce pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 4( m ) , forfai l ur e t o m ake s ervi ce w i t hi n 120 day s of t he fi l i ng of the compl ai nt , unl es s he coul d s how good caus e as t o w hys ervi ce w as not m ade w i t hi n t hatper i od. I n a r es pons e dat ed D ece m ber29, 2007 and fi l ed on J anuary3, 2 0 0 8 (af ter be ing im p rop erlysu b m itted d ir ec tl yto ch am b ers), H u sick inf o rm ed the c o u rt t hatt he compl ai nthad bee n t i m el ys erved on the def endant . H e att ache d pr oof of s ervi ce and al s o i nfor m ed the courtt hathe “w i s h[ed] t o pr ocee d w i t h [hi s ] cas e des pi t e the fa ct [th at he h ad ] no t bee n fo rtu n ate e n o u g h to retain se rvice s o f a n att o rne y . ” T h e c o u rt acknow l edged H us i ck’ s r es pons e i n an or derent er ed on thats ame dat e and a dm oni s hed h im to co m p lyw ith the F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re, th e L o ca l R u les fo r th e W estern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a, and t he co urt ’s O rder s, P oli ci es and P rocedu res .

C ouns el fordefe ndantent er ed appe ar ance s t he fol l ow i ng m ont h and s ubm i t t ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he compl ai nton February20, 2008. I n t hatm ot i on, de fe nd a nta r gu e d tha tt he c ompl a i nts ho ul d b e di s mi s s e d p ur s ua ntt o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) g i v e n Hu s i c k ’ s f a i l u r e t o t i me l ye x h a u s ta d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e me d i e s f o rh i s c l a i ms b a s e d o n a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f T itle V II o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . §3

2 0 0 0 e e t s e q ., a n d th e A g e D is c ri m in a tio n in E m p lo ym e n t A c t, 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 , e t s e q ., b yf ilin g a tim e ly co m p la in t w ith th e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rt u n ity C o m m is s io n . A l t ernat i vel y , defe ndantar gued thatH us i ck’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h Fed. R . C i v. P. 10( b) m ade i tdi ffi cul tt o fr ame a r es pons i ve pl eadi ng and thathe s houl d be r equi r ed t o fi l e an amended compl ai nti n compl i ance w i t h R ul e 10( b) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt her eaf t eri s s ued an O r deron M ot i ons Pr act i ce w her ei n i tadvi s ed the part i es of the fi l i ng r equi r ement s for bot h di s pos i t i ve and non- di s pos i t i ve mot i ons . W i t h r es pectt o a r es pons e t o a di s pos i t i ve m o tio n , th e c o u rt in s tru c te d th a t s u c h a re s p o n s e w a s to b e f ile d w ith in tw e n ty (2 0 ) d a y s . H us i ck, w ho cl ai m s t o have be en unaw ar e of hi s obl i gat i on t o fi l e a s ubs t ant i ve r es pons e, too k n o ac ti o n an d , in a tw o sen tenc e o rde r en tered o n M arc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed def

endant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s beca us e of hi s fai l ur e t o fi l e an oppos i t i on t o t hat m ot i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.

T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the or derdi s m i s s i ng t he co m p lai n t i s p lena ry . T ali af erro v . D arb yT w p . Z o n ing B d . , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2006) . H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e, w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or deri s contr aryt o ourdeci s i on i n St ackhous e v. M azurki ew i cz, 951 F. 2d 29 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . I n St ackhous e, w e made cl earourdi s favorof di s m i s s al s underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) forpurpos es of s anct i oni ng a l i t i gant , and hel d t hata R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on s houl d notbe gr ant ed w i t houtan ana l y s i s of the mer i t s of the under l y i ng compl ai ntnot w i t hs t andi ng4

l o c a l ru l e s r e g a r d i n g t h e g r a n t i n g o f u n o p p o s e d mo t i o n s . W h i l e we o b s e r v e d t h a t“ s o me cas es ” coul d be di s m i s s ed as unoppos ed, “part i cul ar l yi f the part yi s r epr es ent ed byan at t or ney ” ori f the part yfai l ed t o compl yw i t h a court ’ s or der s , i d. at30, s uch i s nott he case here. T here i s no indi cat i on i n the r ecord t hat H usi ck is an ex peri enced pro se l i t i gat orort hathi s pos i t i on as a mi nut e cl erk gave hi m anypar t i cul arl i t i gat i on know l edge. M or eover , al t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a ge ner al or deradvi s i ng H us i ck of hi s need t o compl yw i t h var i ous rul es , pol i ci es and pr ocedur es , w e do notcons i der s uch an or dert o be a s peci fi c di r ect i ve w hi ch H us i ck chos e t o i gnor e and w hi ch ca n be f o u n d su f f icie n t to re n d e r th e S tac k h o u se h o ld in g in a p p lica b le. W e f u rth e r d e c lin e to cons i dert he mer i t s of H us i ck’ s compl ai ntort he al t ernat i ve j us t i fi cat i on offe r ed by defe ndanti n s uppor tof i t s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T hos e i s s ues “s houl d i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance be cons i der ed s ubs t ant i vel ybyt he D i s t r i ctC our t , ” s ee i d. , es peci al l ys i nce i tappea r s t hat H us i ck w i s hes t o advanc e an a r gum entr egar di ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng. See, e. g. , O s hi verv. L ev in, Fish b ein, S ed ran & B erm an , 3 8 F . 3 d 1 3 8 0 , 1 3 8 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).

A ccor di ngl y , t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be vac at ed and thi s m at t er rem and ed fo r fur t her proceedings.