Toni Clark v. Jose Linares ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • PS4-058                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 14-3647
    ___________
    TONI CLARK,
    Appellant
    v.
    JUDGE LINARES, Judge; CHIEF JUDGE SIMANDLE;
    ANDREA WALKER, Deputy-In-Charge
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-13-cv-05484)
    District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    February 19, 2015
    Before: FISHER, KRAUSE and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: February 19, 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.
    PER CURIAM
    Toni Clark, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District
    Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing her complaint. We will affirm the
    District Court’s judgment.
    In August 2013, Clark filed a complaint naming Judge Jose Linares, Judge Jerome
    Simandle, and Andrea Walker, Deputy-in-Charge, as defendants. She alleged that the
    defendants acted improperly by working to prevent her from prevailing in a case she had
    filed previously. The District Court granted Clark’s application to proceed in forma
    pauperis and, on November 4, 2013, sua sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
    The District Court concluded that Clark’s complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a) of
    the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the complaint consisted largely of vague
    and confusing statements. Further, the District Court determined that it would be futile to
    give Clark leave to amend her complaint because all of her claims were barred by judicial
    immunity.
    On December 5, 2013, Clark filed with the District Court a document titled
    “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” purporting to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court. It
    does not appear that any action was taken on this document. Eight months later, on
    August 11, 2014, she filed in this Court a document titled “Notice of Motion,” stating that
    the document was an “application for extension of time to move, answer, or otherwise
    reply.” The circuit clerk forwarded Clark’s “Notice of Motion” to the district clerk,
    stating that the document was “to be treated as a Notice of Appeal from the District Court
    2
    order entered 11/4/13.” The circuit clerk ordered a briefing schedule, and the parties
    submitted briefing.
    We must first consider our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Appellees argue
    that we lack jurisdiction because Clark’s August 2014 notice of appeal was untimely and
    her earlier “petition for writ of certiorari,” filed with the District Court in December
    2013, should not be deemed a timely notice of appeal. A notice of appeal in a civil case
    in which a United States officer is a party must be filed “within 60 days after entry of the
    judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Federal Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 3(c) requires that a notice of appeal specify the party taking the
    appeal, designate the order being appealed, and name the court to which the appeal is
    taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(A)-(C). This rule, although “jurisdictional in nature,” is
    not founded on a statute. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 
    487 U.S. 312
    , 316 (1988).
    Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated that “the requirements of the rules of procedure
    should be liberally construed and that ‘mere technicalities’ should not stand in the way of
    consideration of a case on its merits.” 
    Id. Federal courts
    of appeal have excused
    technical noncompliance with Rule 3(c) where the circumstances make the destination of
    the appeal clear. See 16A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3949.4
    n.65 (4th ed. 2008) (collecting cases).
    The only document filed within 60 days after entry of the District Court’s order
    was Clark’s “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” purporting to seek review in the U.S.
    Supreme Court. Although Clark’s petition fell short of the formal requirements of Fed.
    3
    R. App. P. 3(c), it was nevertheless the “functional equivalent” of a notice of appeal, and
    it clearly evidenced an intention to seek review. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) advisory
    committee’s 1993 note; 3d Cir. L.A.R. 3.4; see also Smith v. Barry, 
    502 U.S. 244
    , 248
    (1992). Moreover, the only appellate court with jurisdiction over Clark’s appeal is the
    United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under these
    circumstances, we think the destination of the appeal was clear and that the defects in
    Clark’s document do not strip this Court of its appellate jurisdiction. Cf. Anderson v.
    District of Columbia, 
    72 F.3d 166
    (D.C. Cir. 1995) (exercising jurisdiction over appeal
    that mistakenly listed the Supreme Court of the United States, rather than the Court of
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).
    We review a dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 for abuse
    of discretion. See In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 
    90 F.3d 696
    , 702 (3d Cir. 1996). Rule
    8(a) requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
    the pleader is entitled to relief.” A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for
    failure to comply with Rule 8; dismissal is appropriate in cases where the “complaint is
    so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any,
    is well disguised.” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 
    49 F.3d 83
    , 86 (2d Cir. 1995). We agree with
    the District Court that this is such a case — Clark’s complaint fails to reveal any factual
    or legal basis for a claim. We also agree with the District Court that the
    defendants/appellees are protected by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, for the
    reasons explained by the District Court. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion
    4
    in denying Clark leave to amend her complaint on the basis of futility. See In re
    Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 
    114 F.3d 1410
    , 1434-35 (3d Cir. 1997).
    For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
    5