Joyner v. City of Philadelphia

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-27-2006
Joyner v. Philadelphia
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4475
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Joyner v. Philadelphia" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 830.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/830
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-4475
________________
BRUCE S. JOYNER,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; DEIDRE ZONVIDE,
A/K/A DEIADRE ZONVICE, A/K/A DEIADRE ZONVIDE;
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LEGAL DEPARTMENT;
BERNARD EVANS; BRENDA LAKE; MICHELLE LAKE
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 05-cv-02129)
District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 22, 2006
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND COWEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 27, 2006 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
In 2002 Bruce S. Joyner filed a complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of
Common Pleas seeking damages for injuries he incurred during a motor vehicle accident.
After the Court of Common Pleas entered a non-suit against him, Joyner unsuccessfully
appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and Supreme Courts. He then filed a
complaint, subsequently amended, in the District Court in which he challenges the state
courts’ decisions. The District Court held a hearing in which it explained to Joyner why it
did not have jurisdiction to entertain his complaint and later entered an order dismissing it
for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.1
Joyner’s complaint does no more than challenge the decisions in his state court
proceedings. However, as the District Court explained to Joyner, “a federal District Court
may not sit as an appellate court to adjudicate appeals of state court proceedings.” Port
Auth. Police Benev. Ass’n, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N. Y. and N. J. Police Dept., 973 F.2d
169, 177-79 (3d Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District
Court.
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. Walker v.
Horn, 385 F.3d 321, 328 n.19 (3d Cir. 2004).
2