Court Opinion

ID: 9369391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 18:00:52.426055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.707670
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2301
                                       __________

                        JOANN FONZONE, a/k/a Judy McGrath

                                             v.

     JOE OTERI; OFFICER KELECHEWISCKY; OFFICER LESINETTE ORTIZ;
      OFFICER BEE; OFFICER KOVAC; PHILLIES; CITIZENS BANK PARK;
                         CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

                                 JOANN FONZONE,
                                             Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                   On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 5-12-cv-05726)
               Magistrate Judge: Honorable Marilyn Heffley (by consent)
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                   February 3, 2023

                Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed February 8, 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 Jo Ann Fonzone appeals the District Court’s order denying her

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) that asked the Court to vacate its order dismissing her

action for failure to prosecute. For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm the District

Court’s judgment.

       Fonzone filed a counseled complaint instituting this action in October 2012. She

alleged that, while attending a Philadelphia Phillies baseball game, a security guard and a

police officer injured her while forcibly removing her from her seating area. She was

placed in a holding cell, where she alleges that she was beaten by police.1 She asserted a

variety of constitutional claims against the security guard (Joe Oteri), the police officers,

and the Phillies.

       As the District Court explained in great detail in its dismissal order, see ECF No.

212, this case proceeded extremely slowly. In 2013, after counsel sought to withdraw,

the Court placed the matter in civil suspense. In 2015, Fonzone elected to proceed pro se

and the case returned to the active docket. On the defendants’ motion, the District Court

dismissed the claims against Oteri and the Phillies without prejudice. Fonzone then filed

her operative amended complaint, see ECF No. 46, and the District Court dismissed the

claims against Oteri and the Phillies with prejudice, see ECF No. 51.

       The District Court initially ordered that discovery be completed by February 2,

2016. See ECF No. 61. Fonzone sought to stay the matter, but, noting that “there have

1
 Fonzone was convicted of disorderly conduct for her behavior at the game. See
Commonwealth v. McGrath, No. 1716 EDA 2014, 2015 WL 7737493 (Pa. Super. Ct.
Dec. 1, 2015).
                                              2
been lengthy gaps in the forward progression of the proceedings,” the Court denied the

motion in April 2016. ECF No. 72. The Court did, however, grant Fonzone’s request to

extend the discovery deadline until August 22, 2016. See ECF No. 74. Fonzone

continued to ask for the discovery deadline to be further extended, see ECF Nos. 81, 94,

and, in March 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution,

claiming that Fonzone had failed to comply with discovery orders, see ECF No. 105. The

District Court denied the motion, concluding that Fonzone had “begun to establish a

history of dilatoriness,” but that dismissal would be an unduly “drastic sanction at this

juncture.” ECF No. 108 at 15.

       Over this period, Fonzone also repeatedly sought an order reinstating her claims

against Oteri, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 53, 73, 75, and the District Court repeatedly denied the

motions, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 55, 74, 76. She also continually sought reconsideration of

the District Court’s order denying a motion to compel (ECF No. 98), again to no avail,

see ECF Nos. 100, 102, 123, 147, 196.

       Eventually, the parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, see ECF

No. 149, who scheduled the case for trial on October 12, 2021. See ECF No. 174. On

September 29, 2021, Fonzone informed the Court that she would be having surgery and

would be unable to proceed with trial. See ECF No. 187. The Court therefore postponed

the trial until April 19, 2022. See ECF No. 194. In that order, issued October 13, 2012,

the Court stressed that “[i]f Plaintiff is not ready to proceed with trial on April 19, 2022,

the case will be dismissed with prejudice.” Id. Fonzone filed several more motions to

                                              3
reopen discovery, which the Court denied. Then, on the eve of trial, Fonzone reported

that she would be unable to proceed with trial because she had a medical appointment.

       The Court therefore issued an order to show cause why the case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 202. The parties responded. After

considering the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d

863 (3d Cir. 1984), the Court dismissed the action. Nearly two months later, Fonzone

filed a Rule 60(b) motion, see ECF No. 216, which the District Court denied, see ECF

No. 217. Fonzone then appealed.

       Fonzone challenges the District Court’s Poulis dismissal as well as the order

denying her Rule 60(b) motion. However, our jurisdiction is limited to review of the

District Court’s order denying Fonzone’s Rule 60(b) motion. A notice of appeal must be

filed within 30 days of the order that the party seeks to appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

The District Court entered its order dismissing the action on April 22, 2022. Because, as

the appellees argue, Fonzone did not file her Rule 60(b) motion within 28 days of that

order, it did not toll the time to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Lizardo v.

United States, 619 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2010). Fonzone filed her notice of appeal on

July 15, 2022—more than 30 days after the District Court’s order dismissing her

complaint—and we therefore lack jurisdiction over that order, see Bowles v. Russell, 551

U.S. 205, 214 (2007), and must dismiss in part this appeal. The notice of appeal is,

however, timely as to the District Court’s order denying the Rule 60(b) motion, so we

have jurisdiction to review that order. We review the District Court’s order for abuse of

discretion. See Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 209 (3d Cir. 2002).

                                              4
       The District Court did not abuse its discretion here. Fonzone argued that she was

not properly served with a copy of the District Court’s order, but as the Court explained,

the docket shows that it was served by email in accordance with the Court’s procedures.

See Notice to Pro Se Litigants (E.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/

documents/notices/not_pro%20se%20email%20address.pdf (“The email address that is

provided will be used to serve copies of orders on the pro se litigant.”). Further, any

issue with service does not undermine the validity of the order itself.

       Otherwise, Fonzone reasserted arguments that the District Court had already

rejected and that she should have raised via appeal. See Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333,

343 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining that Rule 60(b) may not be used as a substitute for

appeal); see generally Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1856, 1864 (2022) (declining to

define the “reasonable time” standard but noting that Courts of Appeals have used it to

deny Rule 60(b)(1) motions alleging errors that could have been raised in a timely

appeal); Blitch v. United States, 39 F.4th 827, 834 (7th Cir. 2022) (noting that “a Rule

60(b) motion filed after the time to appeal has run that seeks to remedy errors that are

correctable on appeal will typically not be filed within a reasonable time”).

       More specifically, in her Rule 60(b) motion, Fonzone again argued that Oteri

should be reinstated as a defendant and that the defendants had wrongly withheld

discovery. However, as noted above, the District Court had already rejected those

arguments over and over. Her repetition of these arguments does not show that the

District Court erred in determining that dismissal was appropriate; if anything, it supports

the Court’s conclusion that Fonzone was unwilling to accept the Court’s rulings and

                                             5
move forward with the case on the terms set by the Court. Cf. R & C Oilfield Servs. LLC

v. Am. Wind Transp. Grp. LLC, 45 F.4th 655, 661 (3d Cir. 2022) (explaining that a

party’s belief that order was erroneous “does not excuse it from either complying with the

order or promptly seeking review”). Fonzone has thus failed to show that the District

Court erred in denying her Rule 60(b) motion.

      We will therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                            6