Pamela Bond v. McKean County
21-1686
| 3rd Cir. | Apr 20, 2022Background
- Pamela Bond sued McKean County asserting three claims: wrongful removal from public housing, an improper car inspection ticket, and challenge to sale of her house for unpaid taxes (the latter partly litigated in a separate action).
- The District Court, on consent, dismissed Bond’s complaint by an order entered August 25, 2020 (the order was combined with an opinion and thus had special entry consequences under Rule 58).
- Bond filed several post‑judgment filings including a motion described as a request to "admit information to case file" (construed as a Rule 60(b) motion) and a request to obtain copies/permission to respond; the court denied these by text orders on February 10 and March 9, 2021, and also entered an order requiring Bond to update her address.
- Bond filed a notice of appeal on April 2, 2021; the Court of Appeals found the notice timely only as to the March 9, 2021 text orders, not as to the original dismissal.
- The Third Circuit dismissed the appeal to the extent it sought review of the underlying dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed denial of the post‑judgment relief, and affirmed the address‑update order (Bond did not meaningfully challenge that order in briefing).
- The court concluded Bond’s post‑judgment motion did not present any basis to reconsider, permit amendment, or reopen the case (she only offered to narrow her public‑housing claim and sought reimbursement of a hotel bill).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the District Court’s dismissal | Bond contends she is challenging the dismissal and filed a notice of appeal (she also suggested a December 2020 filing) | McKean County: Bond’s notice was untimely as to the dismissal; the dismissal order’s entry date and Bond’s filings do not preserve timely appellate review | Court lacked jurisdiction over the dismissal; appeal dismissed in part |
| Whether the District Court erred in denying Bond’s post‑judgment motion to "admit information" / amend | Bond sought to narrow the public‑housing claim and amend the complaint to add information and seek hotel reimbursement | County: the filing was untimely under Rule 59(e), properly construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, and did not state grounds for relief | Affirmed denial of the motion; no basis shown to reconsider or permit amendment |
| Whether the order requiring Bond to update her address was improper | Bond asserted the address order reflected an "outlandish assumption regarding females" in her notice of appeal | County: the order simply required Bond to clarify conflicting addresses; Bond made no argument that she didn’t receive the dismissal or when she received it | The March 9 address‑update order is within the Court’s jurisdiction but Bond failed to challenge it in briefing; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (notice of appeal must specifically indicate intent to seek appellate review)
- Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2011) (distinguishing timely Rule 59(e) relief from Rule 60(b) post‑judgment relief)
- Walker v. Astrue, 593 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2010) (construing untimely post‑judgment filings as Rule 60(b) motions)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass'n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2007) (treatment of orders combined with opinions under Rule 58 and entry timing)