Filed: Feb. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: CLD-111 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 14-3665 _ RAFAEL ANTONIO JOSEPH, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE; MS. BEEBAR; JONES; MOSES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SOCIAL WORKERS _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2-13-cv-01993) District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. _ Submitted By the Clerk for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect and Pos
Summary: CLD-111 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 14-3665 _ RAFAEL ANTONIO JOSEPH, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE; MS. BEEBAR; JONES; MOSES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SOCIAL WORKERS _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2-13-cv-01993) District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. _ Submitted By the Clerk for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect and Poss..
More
CLD-111 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3665
___________
RAFAEL ANTONIO JOSEPH,
Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE;
MS. BEEBAR; JONES; MOSES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SOCIAL WORKERS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 2-13-cv-01993)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
____________________________________
Submitted By the Clerk for Possible Dismissal Due to a
Jurisdictional Defect and Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 12, 2015
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 25, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Rafael Antonio Joseph appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders dismissing
his claims. We will affirm.
I.
Joseph filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare
(“DPW”) alleging that, in March of 2013, it denied his application for food-stamp
benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because he did not
establish that his previous receipt of such benefits from New Mexico had ceased. Joseph
claims that DPW’s denial of benefits was in violation of state and federal law because
DPW should have taken further steps to verify cessation of New Mexico benefits itself
and should have relied on a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that he
does not receive federal benefits. Joseph further claims that DPW’s denial requires him
to eat his meals at homeless shelters and that those meals interfere with his medication.
The District Court dismissed Joseph’s complaint on the ground that DPW is
immune from federal suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and Joseph filed an amended
complaint containing essentially the same allegations and naming as additional
defendants three DPW social workers involved with his case. He identified these
individuals as “Ms. Beebar,” “Ms. Jones” and “Ms. Moses,” and he named them “in their
official capacity as social workers.” By order entered May 28, 2013, the District Court
dismissed the amended complaint against DPW, again on Eleventh Amendment grounds,
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
2
and directed the United States Marshal to serve process on the individual defendants.
The Marshal ultimately served Jones and Moses but was unable to serve Beebar because
DPW employed no one by that name.
Jones and Moses filed a motion to dismiss Joseph’s amended complaint on
multiple grounds, including that he could not state a due process claim because
Pennsylvania provides an adequate remedy for the denial of benefits—i.e., an
administrative review process that includes review as of right by the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court. See 55 Pa. Code §§ 275.1-275.4.1 After Joseph’s deadline to
respond to that motion expired, the District Court ordered him to respond and warned
him that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action against Jones and Moses.
Joseph failed to respond, and the District Court dismissed his claims against Jones and
Moses without prejudice by order entered January 6, 2014.
One month later, the District Court ordered Joseph to show cause why it should
not dismiss the action against Beebar, the only remaining defendant, for failure to serve
her with process within the time required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).2 The District Court
constitute binding precedent.
1
Joseph attached to his initial complaint a form indicating that he instituted this process
by submitting a “fair hearing” request to DPW, but he has not alleged the status of that
proceeding.
2
The District Court granted Joseph leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which required
officers of the court to serve process, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), but Joseph was required to
take “‘reasonable steps . . . to identify for the court the defendants named in the
3
once again warned Joseph that his failure to respond would result in dismissal of the
action. Joseph once again failed to respond, and the District Court dismissed the action
without prejudice as to Beebar as well. Joseph appeals, and we have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.3
II.
Joseph’s appeal brings two issues before us. The first is the District Court’s
dismissal of his claims against DPW on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We
exercise plenary review over that issue. See Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621
complaint.’” Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Byrd v. Stone,
94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996)).
3
Joseph initially did not file a notice of appeal and instead filed a mandamus petition
with this Court, which we denied but transferred to the District Court to be treated as a
timely motion to extend his time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). See In re
Joseph, 574 F. App’x 61, 62-63 (3d Cir. 2014). Joseph later filed a notice of appeal and
the District Court granted his Rule 4(a)(5) motion. That ruling rendered Joseph’s notice
timely, see, e.g., Hinton v. City of Elwood,
997 F.2d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1993); Consol.
Freightways Corp. of Del. v. Larson,
827 F.2d 916, 921 (3d Cir. 1987), and was
otherwise jurisdictionally proper, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c). We
previously questioned whether the District Court’s orders of dismissal are final because
they dismissed Joseph’s claims without prejudice, but we also noted that a dismissal for
failure to prosecute and without leave to amend can constitute a final order, see In re
Joseph, 574 F. App’x at 62 n.1, and we stated that “the District Court, if it intended to
enter anything other than a final order, can provide such clarification as may be
appropriate” in considering Joseph’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion,
id. at 62. The District Court
did not specify that it considered its orders non-final and, to the contrary, its grant of
Joseph’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion suggests that it views the matter as concluded. The District
Court also did not grant Joseph leave to further amend and has marked the action
“closed.” Thus, we are satisfied that the District Court’s orders of dismissal are final and
that we otherwise have jurisdiction under § 1291.
4
F.3d 249, 252 (3d Cir. 2010). Having done so, we agree that Joseph’s claims against
DPW are barred by the Eleventh Amendment for the reasons adequately explained by the
District Court. See also
id. at 254-55 (holding that “the DPW is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity because it is an administrative agency without existence apart
from the Commonwealth”).
The second issue is the District Court’s dismissal of Joseph’s claims against the
individual defendants. We construe both dismissals as ones under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
for failure to prosecute, and we review them for abuse of discretion. See In re Asbestos
Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236, 246 (3d Cir. 2013). We discern none here.
Although District Courts generally must consider certain factors before taking the drastic
step of dismissing a complaint with prejudice, see
id. (citing Poulis v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co.,
747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984)), the District Court in this case dismissed Joseph’s
claims without prejudice. Its rulings are final for § 1291 purposes as discussed above,
but they were not effectively dismissals with prejudice because no conceivably applicable
statute of limitations had run when the District Court entered its orders. Thus, the
District Court’s rulings permitted Joseph to pursue any state-court remedies he may have
following the state’s administrative review process, which it appears he has invoked.4
4
We note that we have liberally and thoroughly reviewed Joseph’s complaint and
amended complaint and discern no conceivably plausible federal claim, largely for the
reasons that Jones and Moses argued in their motion to dismiss.
5
Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the District Court acted within its
discretion in dismissing these claims without prejudice. In each instance, the District
Court expressly warned Joseph that it would dismiss his amended complaint as to these
defendants if Joseph failed to respond as the District Court directed and, in each instance,
Joseph failed to respond. Joseph does not claim on appeal that he did not receive these
orders. To the contrary, he argues that the orders were “confusing and baffling” and that
he was partially homeless and devoting his available time to litigating other cases.
Joseph does not explain how these circumstances prevented him from complying with the
District Court’s orders, and he did not raise them before the District Court in the first
instance. We decline to hold that the District Court abused its discretion on the basis of
arguments that Joseph could have presented to it but did not.
III.
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s orders entered May 28, 2013,
January 6, 2014, and February 26, 2014. Our ruling is without prejudice to Joseph’s
ability to seek such relief from the denial of benefits as may be available in state court.
We express no opinion on the merits of any claim he may have in that regard.
6
