PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has decreed that a Philadelphia man’s civil rights-based lawsuit against municipal entities in Pottstown be re-opened and he be permitted to appeal, after finding the plaintiff demonstrated a credible reason for delay subsequent to his appeal attempt initially being denied.
In a March 3 decision, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge C. Darnell Jones II ordered the suit of plaintiff Sekema Gentles re-opened, allowing him to appeal against the Borough of Pottstown and the Pottstown Borough Council.
“On March 25, 2017, plaintiff was informed that there was a protection from abuse order in place and that an officer from the Pottstown Police Department wanted to meet and speak with him. Plaintiff went to the Police Department and was confronted with three text messages. Plaintiff told defendants he never sent these text messages and did not use or own this telephone number,” Jones said.
Disbelieving plaintiff, the defendants arrested Gentles on March 26, 2017 for indirect criminal contempt and violating a protection from abuse order. Nine days later, on April 4, 2017, the Commonwealth withdrew and dismissed all charges against plaintiff without explanation.
“Even with the dismissal of these charges, plaintiff claims he has suffered irreparable harm, including: loss of liberty, claustrophobia, depression, spatial disorientation, anxiety, anger, loneliness, alienation, mental anguish, fear, loss of wages, diminishing physical and mental health, and emotional distress. Based upon at least his own experiences, plaintiff brings the present suit claiming defendants have a practice of stopping, detaining, and arresting men of color without probable cause or reasonable suspicion,” Jones added.
On Feb. 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed the instant civil rights lawsuit against defendants. After a later exchange of dismissal motion and amended complaints with no response from the plaintiff, the Court dismissed all claims against the defendants on July 23, 2020.
On Aug. 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court's dismissal Plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 21, 2020. On Sept.3, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stayed disposition on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but clearly noted that this stay did not apply to plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing and docketing fees.
When the plaintiff never paid these fees, the Third Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s notice of appeal on Oct. 1, 2020 based upon a failure to timely prosecute. Additionally, on Oct. 16, 2020, the instant Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Over one month later, on Nov. 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. Nearly one month after notifying the Court of his change of address, plaintiff filed the present motion to reopen and to direct the clerk to accept the filing of his notice of appeal. Subsequently, defendants submitted a response in opposition on Jan. 15, 2021.
“In his motion, plaintiff raises two main arguments to support reopening his case: (1) Plaintiff never paid the requisite filing fee because he was waiting on this Court’s disposition for his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration; and (2) He did not become aware of the denials of his motion for leave and appeal until Dec. 8, 2020 because he was undergoing a turbulent 90 days with a contentious divorce and was, therefore, delayed in notifying the Court of his change of address,” Jones stated.
“Defendants responded that not only is plaintiff’s motion to reopen time-barred under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), but, alternatively, plaintiff also has not established excusable neglect for failing to notify the Court of his change of address.”
Jones explained that even taking into account the plaintiff’s claims that he did not receive notice of denial for either his appeal and motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration until Dec. 8, 2020 – and the defendants countering this was due in part to the plaintiff’s own fault in failing to notify the Court of his change of address, relevant appellate case law has yielded to plaintiffs in such matters.
“Having determined this, the Court further holds that plaintiff also has established the second requirement because he filed the present motion within 14 days of receiving notice of the denials for his appeal and motion for reconsideration. Finally, after considering all the pleadings in this case and the validity of defendants’ defenses, the Court finds that neither party would be prejudiced should the Court grant the present motion, because it will just provide plaintiff the opportunity to file another notice of appeal,” Jones said.
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to reopen is granted, and he shall have an additional fourteen 14 days from the date of this order to file an appeal.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-01199
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com