Whitewood v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Health
621 F. App'x 141
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Pro se James Schneller sought to intervene in a case challenging Pennsylvania’s Marriage Law on behalf of himself and the Philadelphia Metro Task Force; the District Court denied intervention because he could not represent the organization pro se and failed to show entitlement to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
- Schneller filed a motion for reconsideration (denied Mar. 17, 2014), then a motion styled as leave to file an amended motion to intervene, which the District Court treated as a second Rule 59(e) motion and denied on Apr. 24, 2014.
- The Apr. 24 order also directed the Clerk to return any future filings by Schneller (a filing injunction) without prior notice or an opportunity to respond.
- Schneller’s May 7, 2014 notice of appeal was returned under the injunction; the court of appeals instructed the District Court to accept the filing as of May 15, 2014; meanwhile the District Court issued a merits ruling on May 20, 2014 declaring the challenged statutes unconstitutional.
- Schneller appealed multiple District Court orders including the denial of intervention, the filing prohibition, and the May 20 merits judgment; appeals were consolidated for this court’s review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal May 20 merits judgment | Schneller argued he could appeal the District Court’s declaration invalidating the statutes | Defendants implicitly contended only parties or proper intervenors may appeal | Dismissed for lack of standing; nonparty denied intervention cannot appeal adverse judgment |
| Proper subject of appellate review | Schneller sought review of earlier orders and his intervention denial | Court noted time to appeal had run for earlier orders; only Apr. 24 order timely | Appellate review limited to Apr. 24, 2014 order denying amended motion to intervene |
| Treatment of amended motion (recharacterization as Rule 59(e)) | Schneller contended the filing was an amended pleading under Rule 15(a) | District Court recharacterized it as a second Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider | Affirmed: District Court did not abuse discretion recharacterizing and denying the motion as repetitive |
| Filing injunction (clerk return order) | Schneller challenged the injunction and lack of notice | District Court asserted need to curb vexatious filings | Vacated: injunction was an extreme remedy, not narrowly tailored, and imposed without notice or opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2012) (only parties or proper intervenors may appeal an adverse judgment)
- Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988) (only parties to a lawsuit may appeal)
- Turner v. Evers, 726 F.2d 112 (3d Cir. 1984) (post-judgment motions do not toll appeal time from initial judgment)
- Max’s Seafood Café ex rel Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of intervention-related motions)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (Rule 59(e) may not be used to relitigate old matters)
- Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1990) (district court may issue filing injunctions against vexatious litigants but must narrowly tailor)
- Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745 (3d Cir. 1989) (filing injunctions are an extreme remedy and must be sparingly used)
- Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987) (notice and opportunity to respond required before imposing filing restrictions)
- Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1993) (same principle on injunctions for vexatious litigants)
- Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2002) (courts may recharacterize motions to match the substance of the relief requested)