Alfred Petrossian v. Jerry Collins , 479 F. App'x 409 ( 2012 )

ALD-165 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4551
___________
ALFRED PETROSSIAN,
Appellant
v.
JERRY S. COLLINS;
ROSE MARY HOWELL;
SUSAN A. COLE, in their individual and official capacities
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 2-11-cv-04882)
District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 26, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 8, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Alfred Petrossian appeals, pro se, the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of his
complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). Because we
conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See
1
3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
In August 2011, Petrossian filed a complaint in the District Court; the District
Court allowed him to file an amended complaint in October 2011. The defendants are all
employees of Montclair State University (“MSU”), a public university in New Jersey.
Petrossian, who is neither a student nor employed by MSU, spends time at the school
library. 1 In June 2011, Petrossian received a letter written by defendant Collins, stating
that he would no longer be permitted on the MSU campus. MSU’s decision was based
on Petrossian’s “alleged policy violations” and disruptive conduct. Petrossian claims that
the ban is retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. He explains that he
passed a note to the office of the MSU library dean complaining about a reference
librarian. In it, Petrossian described the librarian’s physical appearance and voice with
insulting language. He claims institutional racial discrimination, retaliation, “retributive
justice,” and raises claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, and the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment.
On December 7, 2011, the District Court dismissed the complaint and the
amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a non-
1
Petrossian states that, in 2008, he “joined a paid membership” at an MSU recreational
center. He asserts that the “membership was under the banner of ‘Alumni Association,’ a
status which the plaintiff has held since mid-1970s . . . an association through which the
plaintiff was officially given an ‘alumni Association’ status.” He does not state
affirmatively, however, that he actually is an MSU alumnus. He further states that MSU
terminated his membership in 2009.
2
frivolous claim against the defendants. Petrossian filed a timely notice of appeal and a
motion to reinstate the case. 2 The District Court denied that motion on January 13, 2012.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d
220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We review denials of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of
discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008).
Summary action is warranted if an appeal presents no substantial question. 3d Cir.
L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
III.
As the District Court noted, to state a claim for relief under Title VII, Petrossian
must at the very least allege that he was an MSU employee and that he suffered some
employment discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. He has done neither. The District
Court also correctly found that Petrossian failed to allege any violations of the rights
protected by § 1981, which forbids discrimination on the basis of race in the making of
public and private contracts. See St. Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609
(1987).
As to Petrossian’s § 1983 claim based on an alleged First Amendment violation,
he has failed to establish that his note to the librarian was constitutionally protected
2
The District Court construed the motion as a motion to vacate or amend the prior
order, given that Petrossian requested relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
3
activity. See Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 512 (3d Cir. 2003). His Sixth
Amendment claim is meritless because the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal
proceedings only. See Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507, 2516 (2011). His Fourteenth
Amendment claim—that he has a protected liberty interest in access to the MSU
library—is conclusory and without any legal support. Accordingly, we agree with the
District Court that Petrossian failed to allege any violations of any protected rights, and
thus, his claim under § 1983 is without merit.
Lastly, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Petrossian’s § 1985
claim. To state a claim under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege: (1) a conspiracy of two
or more persons; (2) motivated by racial or class-based discriminatory animus designed
to deprive, directly or indirectly, any person or class of person to the equal protection of
the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) an injury to person or
property or to the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.
See Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 805 (3d Cir. 2001). He fails to allege any
facts indicating that the defendants conspired to deprive him of protected rights or that
their decision to deny him access to the MSU campus was racially motivated.
Following the dismissal, Petrossian sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1), which
provides that a court may relieve a party from final judgment for “mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect.” He claimed that the District Court “took no interest in
ascertaining how a U.S. Citizen . . . is permanently outcast from a public community and
public venues, by mere false allegation of undefined ‘disruptive conducts.’” The District
4
Court properly determined that Petrossian was attempting to relitigate his claims, and
failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances warranting 60(b) relief. See
Martinez-McBean v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 562 F.2d 908, 911-12 (3d Cir. 1977).
Accordingly, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief
under Rule 60(b)(1). See Budget Blinds, 536 F.3d at 251.
IV.
Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Petrossian’s
motion for injunctive relief asking us to restore his access to MSU is denied.
5