NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3415
___________
RICHARD SNYDER,
Appellant
v.
CAROLYN SWANSON, Personal Representative of Estate of George Swanson;
ROBERT B. SWANSON
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil Action No. 10-cv-00284)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
___________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 22, 2011
Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 25, 2011)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Richard Snyder appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware dismissing his civil action. On April 8, 2010, Snyder filed his action
in District Court, relating to a matter originating in the Circuit Court of Maryland. On
April 20, 2010, the District Court ordered Snyder’s document, docketed as a notice of
removal, stricken from the docket. Referencing an April 14, 2010 order entered in
D. Del. Civ. No. 09-cv-00025, which enjoined Richard and Marion Snyder from filing
additional actions regarding their court proceedings in Maryland without prior
authorization, the District Court ordered Snyder to file a motion for leave to file, and to
attach a copy of the order to the motion. The District Court warned that failure to follow
the requirements specified in the April 14, 2010 order would result in dismissal of the
case. A copy of the April 14, 2010 order appears in the record as an attachment to the
District Court’s April 20, 2010 order, and it summarizes the Snyders’ long history of
proceedings in numerous courts, challenging matters arising from a Maryland bankruptcy
proceeding that began in 1999.1 On July 13, 2010, the District Court dismissed the case,
noting that Snyder had failed to comply with the April 20, 2010 order.2 Snyder appeals.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
As Snyder notes in his informal brief, his case was filed on April 8, 2010, but the
order imposing filing restrictions on the Snyders was filed later, on April 14, 2010.
Snyder’s argument, as we understand it, is that the District Court erred in enforcing the
1
The Snyders appealed the dismissal of their case in D. Del. Civ No. 09-cv-00025, but
they did not separately appeal the later-entered injunction order. We affirmed the District
Court’s dismissal on December 15, 2010 (C.A. No. 10-2048).
2
In the meantime, on May 11, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The
2
injunction retroactively to a case that already had been filed before the injunction was
issued. Upon review of the record, we agree. In issuing the injunction, the District Court
found that the Snyders failed to show good cause why they should not be enjoined from
filing any “further” cases as described in the order. Also, under the terms of the
injunction order, the clerk’s office was directed not to accept any filing fees or specified
forms in connection with a motion for leave to file, unless leave to file was granted. In
this case, the case had been opened, with the filing fee paid, before the Snyders were
enjoined from initiating future cases covered by the terms of the injunction.
To the extent that Snyder raises arguments challenging the propriety of the
injunction order itself, or any other arguments relating to other cases or appeals, those
matters are not properly before us. We will not address those issues.
For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the order of the District Court and
remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the merits of the underlying
action.
District Court did not rule on the motion.
3