407 F.3d 603 (3rd Cir. 2005), 04-1866, Brennan v. Kulick
|Citation:||407 F.3d 603|
|Party Name:||William J. BRENNAN, Appellant v. Eugene KULICK, individually and as Commissioner of Little Falls Fire Department and as Committeeman for the Township of Little Falls; Janice Sandri, individually and as Deputy Commissioner of the Little Falls Fire Department and as Committeewoman for the Township of Little Falls; Rick Ricciardelli, individually and|
|Case Date:||May 13, 2005|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 5, 2005.
Mark E. Ruffolo, Esq., Ramsey, NJ, Counsel for Appellant.
Rosaria A. Suriano, Esq., Podvey, Sachs, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner & Cocoziello, Newark, NJ, Counsel for Appellees.
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
COWEN, Circuit Judge.
William J. Brennan appeals the March 1, 2004 order of the District Court denying his renewed motion to vacate the District Court's previous order dated January 27, 2003, and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse and remand.
This case has a long, tortured, and protracted procedural history. On August 13, 2001, Brennan, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and various state laws.
The District Court promulgated a scheduling order on November 26, 2001. Defendants repeatedly complained that Plaintiff was not complying with his discovery obligations. In response, the District Court entered four separate discovery-related orders. 1 The last of these orders was dated December 19, 2002, and sanctioned Brennan for his refusal to follow the previous orders. Paragraph 1 of this order instructed Brennan to pay a monetary sanction by December 23, 2002.
Brennan failed to pay the sanction on time. The District Court therefore dismissed his complaint without prejudice by order dated January 27, 2003. The order states in relevant part:
1. That plaintiff's Complaint shall be and the same is hereby dismissed without prejudice because of plaintiff's failure to comply with paragraph (1) of the December 19, 2002 Case Management Order;
2. That if plaintiff fails to comply with the December 19, 2002 Case Management Order and if the Complaint is not reinstated within 30 days, the Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice upon application of defendants;
(App. at 51.)
Brennan retained present counsel on February 25, 2003. 2 On that date, Brennan's counsel filed a motion to vacate the January 27, 2003 dismissal without prejudice, or, in the alternative, to enlarge the time to reply. In addition, on the previous day counsel sent by overnight mail an attorney trust check to Defendants' counsel in satisfaction of the monetary sanction. Defendants' response requested that the District Court condition any reinstatement of Brennan's complaint (which had been...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP