Court Opinion

ID: 9376056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 19:00:32.677797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.078416
License: Public Domain

DLD-092                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 22-3441
                                      ___________

                                    THOMAS DAVIS,
                                                Appellant

                                             v.

               ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                    ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-01275)
                      District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
                      ____________________________________

         Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
         or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   February 16, 2023
             Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: March 1, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Pro se appellant Thomas Davis appeals the denial of his motion for post-judgment

relief. For the following reasons, we will dismiss Davis’ appeal as frivolous under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

       In September 2022, Davis filed a civil rights complaint in the District Court

against the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. He repeated allegations, largely

verbatim, from his previous lawsuits accusing the district attorney’s office, the public

defender’s office, and Allegheny County of civil rights violations when he was

prosecuted for robbery thirty years ago. See generally Davis v. Cty, of Allegheny, W.D.

Pa. Civ. No. 09-cv-00415; Davis v. Cty. of Allegheny, W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2-18-cv-

00794. 1 Without exception, the District Court dismissed the prior lawsuits and denied his

post-judgment motions, and we affirmed. See C.A. Nos. 10-2143 (dismissing appeal

from judgment in D.C. Civ. No. 09-00415), 18-2962 (affirming dismissal of complaint in

D.C. Civ. No. 18-00794), and 19-2703 (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) relief in D.C. Civ.

No. 18-00794).

       In this action, he named the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas as the only

defendant. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without leave

1
  Davis continues to argue that, as a result of a policy concerning unrecorded pre-trial
plea negotiations, the district attorney’s office successfully reneged on an agreement to
drop all charges based on the results of a DNA test. Davis was ultimately convicted of
four counts of robbery, acquitted of two, and sentenced to 14 to 28 years in prison. Davis
has filed numerous state post-conviction motions and federal petitions challenging his
convictions and sentence and arguing that the DNA test exonerated him of the robbery
charges, even though it apparently only did so with respect to two such charges. See
Davis v. Cty. of Allegheny, W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:09-cv-01452, ECF No. 2 at 3-4. He was
released in 2018.
                                             2
to amend in an order entered in November 2022. See ECF Nos. 9 & 10 (Mem. Op. and

Order). Davis filed a post-judgment motion, which the District Court construed as a

motion for reconsideration and denied. See ECF Nos. 12 & 13 (Mem. Op. and Order).

Davis filed a timely appeal. 2

       Because Davis’ appeal from the denial of his timely post-judgment motion “brings

up the underlying judgment for review,” we will review both the order dismissing his

lawsuit and the order denying the motion for reconsideration. See McAlister v. Sentry

Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 550, 552-53 (3d Cir. 1992). We will assess the court’s order

dismissing the complaint with prejudice de novo. See Vorchheimer v. Phila. Owners

Ass’n, 903 F..3d 100, 105 (3d Cir. 2018). Regardless of whether Davis’ post-judgment

motion is viewed as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) or under Rule 59(e), we review

the denial for an abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244,

251 (3d Cir. 2008); Long v. Atlantic City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 446 (3d Cir. 2012).

       As the District Court explained, the sole defendant is immune from suit under the

Eleventh Amendment. See Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 241 (3d Cir.

2005). Even if it were not, the complaint would be barred by the statute of limitations

because the relevant acts occurred over thirty years ago. Neither flaw may be cured

through amendment, so the District Court did not err in declining to allow Davis to

amend. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

2
 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because our Clerk
has granted Davis in forma pauperis status, we must dismiss the appeal as frivolous if the
appeal lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
                                            3
       On appeal, Davis complains that the District Court erred in treating his post-

judgment motion as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) rather than a motion

under Rule 60(b)(3) for relief from judgment due to fraud. See 3d Cir. Dkt. No. 7 at 3.

Any such error would have been harmless because his motion was properly denied under

either standard. As the District Court explained, the motion did not meet the Rule 59(e)

standard, and Davis has not shown that the defendant “engaged in fraud or other

misconduct [which] prevented [him] from fully and fairly presenting his case.”

Stridiron v. Stridiron, 698 F.2d 204, 207 (3d Cir. 1983).

       Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).

                                             4