Tinsley v. Adams

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-27-2007
Tinsley v. Adams
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3060
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Tinsley v. Adams" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 366.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/366
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-147 (August 2007) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-3060
________________
RUSSELL TINSLEY, And On Behalf of Similar Inmates Situation,
Appellant
vs.
ADAMS (WARDEN); GREGORY E. SMITH; DIANA ANHOLT; LYNNE
ABRAHAM; WILLIAM J. MAZZOLA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-01701)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal due to Jurisdictional Defect and Possible Dismissal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
August 24, 2007
BEFORE: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: September 27, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Russell Tinsley, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania partially dismissing his civil
rights complaint, and an order denying his motion for reconsideration. We will dismiss
1
this appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and in part pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
In his complaint, Tinsley sought damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief against Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Gregory Smith, Judge William
Mazzola, Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham, Assistant District Attorney
Diana Anholt, and Warden Adams of the Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center.
Tinsley claimed constitutional violations related to his ongoing criminal case, including
violations of his rights to a speedy trial and access to the courts.
The District Court dismissed Tinsley’s claims for equitable relief under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. The District Court explained that Tinsley’s case was ongoing in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and that it would not interfere in the state judicial
process where Tinsley had not shown irreparable injury, a flagrant and patent violation of
an express constitutional prohibition, or other extraordinary circumstances.
The District Court also dismissed Tinsley’s claims for damages against
Judges Smith and Mazzola, District Attorney Abraham, and Assistant District Attorney
Anholt based on absolute immunity. And the District Court denied Tinsley’s request for
class certification because the complaint centered on Tinsley’s criminal case. Finally, the
District Court ruled that Tinsley’s claim against Warden Adams based on an alleged denial
of library and legal mail privileges could proceed. Tinsley unsuccessfully sought
reconsideration of the District Court’s order, and this appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.
2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. The rule of finality requires that the judgment be final as to all parties
and causes of action to be appealable. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Metro Communications, Inc.,
945 F.2d 635, 640 (3d Cir. 1991) (citing Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334, 340
(1963)). Tinsley seeks to appeal an order dismissing some, but not all, of the defendants in
his case. Because a final order has not been entered as to all parties, and the District Court
has not certified its order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we lack jurisdiction
to review the dismissal of Tinsley’s claims for damages against the judges and
prosecutors. And, to the extent Tinsley seeks our permission under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f) to appeal the denial of class certification, we decline to exercise our
discretionary jurisdiction. See Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
259 F.3d 154, 163-64 (3d Cir. 2001).
We have jurisdiction, however, of appeals from interlocutory orders
“granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to
dissolve or modify injunctions . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). In order to be appealable
under § 1292(a)(1), the order must relate to the relief ultimately sought by the claimant.
Hershey Foods Corp. v. Hershey Creamery Co., 945 F.2d 1272, 1277-78 (3d Cir. 1991).
In his complaint, Tinsley sought a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the
defendants to stop denying him his rights to a speedy trial, access to the courts, and
assistance of counsel. As noted above, the District Court dismissed Tinsley’s claims for
special or equitable relief based on the ongoing state court proceedings. The District
Court’s order relates to the relief Tinsley ultimately sought in his complaint, and the order
3
is appealable under § 1292(a)(1).
Although appealable, we agree with the District Court’s dismissal of
Tinsley’s claims for injunctive relief. Tinsley sought federal interference in an ongoing
state criminal prosecution. Absent extraordinary circumstances, where the danger of
irreparable loss is both great and immediate, injunctive relief is not available. Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-6 (1971). Tinsley has not shown that such circumstances are
present here.
Accordingly, we will dismiss Tinsley’s appeal for lack of appellate
jurisdiction to the extent he appeals from the order dismissing his damages claims and
denying class certification. We will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to the extent Tinsley appeals from the order dismissing his claims for
injunctive relief and the order denying reconsideration of that order.
4