Townsend v. NJ Transit, 040213 FED3, 12-4127

Docket Nº:12-4127
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Judge Panel:Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
Case Date:April 02, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit




No. 12-4127

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

April 2, 2013


Submitted on the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 14, 2013

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-06492) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges



Claude Townsend filed a relatively short complaint against New Jersey Transit in state court. New Jersey Transit moved to dismiss the complaint. Townsend responded by elaborating on his claims, relying on federal statutes like the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA"), and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), as well as the New Jersey Law against Discrimination ("NJ LAD"). New Jersey Transit removed the action to federal court.

Townsend sought to remand the matter to state court. After the District Court denied that motion, New Jersey Transit sought an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The District Court granted the extension. Townsend then filed a motion to vacate the order granting the extension and to enter default against New Jersey Transit. New Jersey Transit subsequently sought to dismiss the matter, arguing, inter alia, that Townsend's claims were barred by the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion. The District Court granted New Jersey Transit's motion on the basis of "res judicata or claim preclusion, " while also mentioning issue preclusion, and denied Townsend's motion.

Townsend appeals and seeks in forma pauperis status, which we grant. He also presents a "motion to reverse the District Court of New Jersey decision by submitting new medical evidence, " which New Jersey Transit opposes (suggesting that we summarily affirm instead). Additionally, Townsend has filed a motion requesting that we rule on his appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the order granting the motion to dismiss is plenary. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2009). We review the order denying the request for an entry of default and allowing the extension of time to stand for abuse of discretion. See Chamberlain v. Giampapa,...

To continue reading