Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke
Citation: 368 F. App'x 275Docket: No. 09-4577
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; March 7, 2010; Federal Appellate Court
James D. Schneller, representing himself, is appealing the District Court’s dismissal of his civil action related to his mother's 2002 death and the administration of his parents' estate. The District Court dismissed all claims on June 26, 2009, and closed the case. Schneller's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 4, 2009. After filing several post-judgment motions, all of which were denied by September 8, 2009, Schneller submitted a motion on October 8, 2009, requesting to appeal in forma pauperis, detailing alleged errors in the District Court’s decisions. Although the District Court granted his request on October 27, 2009, Schneller's formal Notice of Appeal was filed on December 2, 2009. The appellate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the June 26 and August 4 orders because Schneller did not file a notice of appeal within the required thirty days, rendering the dismissal final and unappealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and related case law. However, the denials of Schneller’s post-judgment motions were deemed separately appealable. The appellate court clarified that Schneller’s October 8 motion should have been recognized as a notice of appeal according to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, as it specified the orders he intended to contest and the grounds for appeal. Jurisdiction exists to consider Schneller's appeal regarding the District Court's denial of his motions to supplement the record and for sanctions, as the document was timely filed. Schneller's motion to supplement argued for more time to respond to Appellees’ oppositions, referencing Rule 15(a), which allows 20 days to amend pleadings. However, a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration is not a pleading, and the District Court's procedures did not allow for automatic reply briefs. The court was not obligated to permit Schneller a reply, and there was no indication that a reply would have influenced its decision. Schneller's proposed reply did not establish grounds for reconsideration. In his motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. 1927, Schneller alleged that Appellees filed frivolous motions to cause unnecessary delays. However, he failed to provide evidence that Appellees acted with improper purpose or intent to mislead the court, making his motion inappropriate for challenging their assertions. As Schneller did not timely appeal the District Court's dismissal and denial of his motion for reconsideration, these arguments cannot be considered. The appeal presents no substantial question, resulting in a summary affirmation of the District Court's orders and dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Schneller, who filed pro se, cannot represent others and will be treated solely as the Appellant. The document indicated a filing date of November 6, 2009, but was file-stamped December 2, 2009. Regardless of the date used, the notice of appeal was untimely concerning the dismissal and denial of reconsideration. His motion for reconsideration was timely but failed to meet the criteria for granting such motions, which require presenting new evidence, an intervening change in law, or correcting a clear error. Schneller's assertions were speculative and did not point to specific legal errors or new evidence.