Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-18-2007
Turner v. Donnelly
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4333
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Turner v. Donnelly" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1257.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1257
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-185 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4333
WILLIAM D. TURNER,
Appellant
vs.
WILLIAM E. DONNELLY, THE PROTHONOTARY;
S. GERALD CORSO, THE PRESIDENT JUDGE;
MONTGOMERY COUNTY; MICHAEL FISHER,
THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR.
_________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00823 )
District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
March 29, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
Filed: April 18, 2007
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, William Turner, appeals from an order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his “motion for leave to
file a 15(c)(2) relation back rule.”
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
1
Because Turner has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
we review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An
appeal may be dismissed if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Appellant’s “motion for leave to file a 15(c)(2) relation back rule” seeks to
have the District Court address issues from his original complaint that Appellant asserts
were “not addressed.” Appellant’s motion seeks relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(c)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
The District Court sua sponte dismissed Appellant’s complaint as to two
defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Thereafter, the District Court granted the
remaining defendants’ motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and dismissed the
complaint. We affirmed. C.A. No. 04-4010. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the
District Court addressed the claims presented by Appellant in his complaint and
dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Neither Rule 15(c)(2) nor Rule 54(b) provides
relief from the entry of that judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2