Frederick Vantassel v. Gerald Rozum
469 F. App'x 110
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Vantassel, a Pennsylvania prisoner, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs from 2004–2007.
- District Court dismissed the complaint on June 25, 2009, prompting Vantassel to file a Rule 59(e) motion on July 7, 2009.
- District Court denied the Rule 59(e) motion on July 30, 2009, and denied a Rule 60(b) motion on September 1, 2009.
- Vantassel filed a notice of appeal on September 22, 2009.
- We consider jurisdiction, Rule 60(b) relief, and whether pre- vs post-July 2006 claims were time-barred or exhausted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely and we have jurisdiction. | Vantassel argues timely appeal of dismissal and denial rulings. | Appellees contend some rulings are untimely and non-appealable. | Appellate jurisdiction limited; timing issues render some rulings non-reviewable. |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) relief motion was timely and proper. | Vantassel seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for extraordinary reasons. | Appellees argue arguments are inadequately framed and timing issues irrelevant to relief. | District Court acted within discretion; the Rule 60(b) request was properly addressed. |
| Whether pre-2006 claims were time-barred or exhausted and post-2006 claims properly analyzed. | Vantassel alleged exhaustion and timeliness errors regarding post-July 2006 conduct. | Court properly analyzed exhaustion for post-July 2006 claims and time-bar for pre-2006 claims. | Court dismissal based on time-bar and exhaustion reasoning; affirmance of dismissal in part and denial in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prison-filed submissions deemed filed when delivered to authorities)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional time limits are strict)
- Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 60(b))
- Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2001) (recognizes reviewability under extraordinary relief standards)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 840 F.2d 188 (3d Cir. 1988) (exceptional circumstances required for Rule 60(b)(6))