Bienvenido Rodriguez, Jr. v. Rev. Ulli Klemm ( 2020 )

ALD-306 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2029
___________
BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ, JR., Appellant
v.
REV. ULLI KLEMM; LIEUTENANT BOONE; EDWARD NIEDERHISER,
Facility Chaplaincy Program Director at S.C.I. Graterford;
REV. KIRT ANDERSON, Facility Chaplaincy Program Director at S.C.I. Pine Grove
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-16-cv-01786)
District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan
____________________________________
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
September 17, 2020
Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 23, 2020)
_________
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
Bienvenido Rodriguez is a Pennsylvania prisoner who was previously housed at
State Correctional Institution Pine Grove. In December 2016, Rodriguez, represented by
counsel, filed a complaint in the District Court claiming that the prison had violated his
First Amendment rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by
failing to make accommodations for the practice of his religion, Yoruba Santeria. The
matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The parties agreed to mediation and settled
the dispute in April 2017. In July 2018, the Magistrate Judge approved the parties’
stipulation of dismissal and dismissed the case with prejudice. 1
Approximately one year later, in July 2019, Rodriguez filed several pro se motions
seeking to reopen the case. 2 The Magistrate Judge denied relief, concluding that all
claims had been settled and that the defendants had fully complied with the terms of the
agreement. The Magistrate Judge denied his request to amend the complaint and
explained that if Rodriguez wished to bring a new lawsuit alleging new claims, he was
free to do so. Rodriguez, dissatisfied with the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, requested a
videoconference. At the conference on November 12, 2019, Rodriquez complained that
he had not received a consecrated Santeria beaded necklace and had not been given
access to the settlement proceeds. The Magistrate Judge advised Rodriguez that the
1
The Magistrate Judge noted in her order that she would retain jurisdiction to resolve
issues related to the settlement agreement.
2
Rodriguez’s counsel of record then moved to withdraw, explaining that they had a
fundamental disagreement with Rodriguez’s demands to reopen the case. The Magistrate
Judge granted counsel’s request.
2
defendants had complied with the agreement by permitting him to purchase a Santeria
consecrated necklace, and that the defendants had properly placed the funds from the
settlement into an escrow account. 3
Rodriguez then filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure alleging that he had not been given a sufficient opportunity to present his
arguments at the conference, in part because he was forced to appear via audioconference
due to technical difficulties with the video connection. The Magistrate Judge rejected
this argument and denied relief. Rodriguez appealed the ruling to the District Court.
The District Court: (1) construed Rodriguez’s motion to reopen and Rule 60(b)
motion together as a single Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the Magistrate Judge’s July
2018 order dismissing the complaint with prejudice in light of the settlement agreement;
(2) construed the Magistrate Judge’s orders denying those motions as reports and
recommendations because no final order had yet been entered in the case; (3) upon de
novo review of Rodriguez’s Rule 60(b) motion, agreed with the Magistrate Judge that
Rodriguez failed to provide a basis for reopening; and (4) denied Rodriguez’s motion.
Rodriguez appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 4 We review the District
Court’s decision not to reopen the case for abuse of discretion. See Reform Party of
3
Rodriguez attempted to appeal from the Minute Entry documenting the hearing, but this
Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. C.A. No. 19-3722 (order entered May
5, 2020).
4
We construe the District Court’s order as adopting the Magistrate Judge’s underlying
order dismissing the case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal.
3
Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Dep’t of Elections, 174 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir.
1999) (en banc).
We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order because no substantial
question is presented by this appeal. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. We have
reviewed the record and agree with the District Court that Rodriguez’s motions do not
state a basis for reopening; as the District Court and Magistrate Judge explained, the
defendants fully complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. To the extent that
Rodriguez asserted that he was not given an opportunity to fully present his arguments at
the November 12, 2019 conference, we have reviewed the transcript and agree with the
Magistrate Judge that he was able to present his case.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm.
4