Thomas v. Advance Housing, Inc., 040312 FED3, 11-4392

Docket Nº:11-4392
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:JAY L. THOMAS, Appellant, v. ADVANCE HOUSING, INC.
Judge Panel:Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
Case Date:April 03, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

JAY L. THOMAS, Appellant,

v.

ADVANCE HOUSING, INC.

No. 11-4392

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

April 3, 2012

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 26, 2012.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-01426) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan.

Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jay L. Thomas appeals pro se the order of the District Court entering final judgment in favor of the defendants. Because we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

On March 23, 2011, plaintiff Jay L. Thomas filed a pro se complaint in District Court against Advance Housing, Inc. ("Advance Housing") making claims of gross negligence and breach of contract pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.1 Advance Housing is a non-profit that provides supportive housing and services to adults with mental health disabilities. Thomas was its client from 2002 through 2008. He alleges that Advance Housing mistreated him-including denying him proper medical attention and medication and denying him transportation to a food pantry-due to his race and disability. The incidents, as alleged, occurred in February 2008 through April 2008. Thomas terminated the relationship in May 2008. Advance Housing filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Thomas then filed a motion to amend the complaint and a proposed (eighth)2 amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion and Thomas appealed. We determined that the District Court improperly denied Thomas' amended complaint, which included a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Such a claim raised a federal question and would have conferred subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, we vacated the District Court's order and remanded for further proceedings. (C.A. No. 11-2581.)

Upon remand, the District Court reopened the case and ordered Thomas' eighth amended complaint filed. On August 22, 2011, Advance Housing filed a motion to dismiss the eighth amended complaint, arguing that Thomas' discrimination claims were time-barred, and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the remaining contract claim. In response to Thomas' claim that he had properly removed the action from state court to federal court, thereby preserving his claims within the statute of limitations, the District Court scheduled a hearing and invited Thomas to file an additional response to the motion and to submit a request to further amend his complaint. Thomas failed to file a response or appear for the hearing. The District Court dismissed Thomas' sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh amended complaints3, and subsequently granted Advance Housing's motion to dismiss the eighth amended complaint. Thomas filed a timely notice of appeal of the order dismissing the eighth amended complaint.

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See McTernan v. City of York, Pa., 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009).

III.

Advance Housing moved to dismiss Thomas' claims under Title...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP