Hopkins v. Trenton Board of Education, 091019 FED3, 18-3701
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||LYMAN S. HOPKINS, Appellant v. TRENTON BOARD OF EDUCATION; MADELINE ROMAN, Official and Individual Cap.; MICHAEL PETTOLA, Official and Individual Cap.; SANDRA ITURBIDES, Official and Individual Cap.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||September 10, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted on Appellees' Motion for Summary Action July 11, 2019
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-03232) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Lyman Hopkins, proceeding pro se, appeals orders of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, including an order dismissing his second amended complaint and denying his motion to amend, and orders denying his motions for reconsideration and relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. We will grant Appellees' motion for summary action and affirm the denial of Rule 60 relief.
Hopkins filed an employment discrimination complaint against the Trenton Board of Education and individual defendants after he was not hired for a position as a Spanish teacher. The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to allege facts supporting a discrimination claim and comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Hopkins moved to reopen his case and submitted another complaint. The defendants opposed the motion. The District Court denied the motion to reopen and allowed Hopkins to file an amended complaint.
Hopkins filed an amended complaint and the District Court reopened the case. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. At a hearing, Hopkins stated that he wished to further amend his complaint. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed Hopkins to file a second amended complaint. Hopkins did so, and the defendants filed another motion to dismiss.1 The District Court ruled that Hopkins failed to state a claim for relief, granted the motion to dismiss, denied Hopkins' motion to amend the complaint, and dismissed...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP