Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-5-2007
Smart v. Gloucester
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1957
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Smart v. Gloucester" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1343.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1343
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-1957
SALAHUDDIN F. SMART,
SOVEREIGN STATE CITIZEN
v.
GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL CORPORATION;
D. HARKINS, INV.; PACE, DET.; MCELROY, PTL.;
E. QUAINTAVALLE, INV.; J. SYPHERD, SGT.;
DANIELS, LT.; JOHN STOLLSTEIMER, CHIEF OF POLICE;
JUDY CRABTREE, JUDICIAL OFFICER; ALLISON ALBRIGHT,
CAMDEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR; SANDY L. LOVE, MAYOR OF
GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP; CAMDEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
Salahuddin F. Smart,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-01489)
District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed April 5, 2007)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant, Salahuddin F. Smart, appeals the District Court’s order denying
his motion to reinstate his complaint. In April 2003, Smart filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The District Court originally granted Smart leave to proceed with the action in
forma pauperis, and the Clerk was directed to file the complaint and to issue summonses
to the United States Marshals for purposes of service. Defendants subsequently filed
motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that
the complaint was not “sufficiently coherent to identify the facts upon which [Smart]
bases his claims.” Smart filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court
denied as untimely in an order entered on January 8, 2004. On appeal, we vacated the
District Court’s January 8 th order given the court’s failure to set forth its judgment on a
separate document as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, and remanded the matter for further
consideration. See C.A. No. 04-1127 (Order of December 21, 2004).
In the meantime, the District Court – acting sua sponte after determining that
Smart had filed at least 29 actions in that court since November 2002, together with in
forma pauperis applications that appeared to be inconsistent – ordered that Smart appear
on April 23, 2004 to give testimony and present proof of his claimed inability to pay the
filing fee. Smart was warned that if he did not prove his indigency, an order would be
2
entered vacating all prior orders permitting him to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fees. In light of the testimony that Smart provided at the April 23 rd proceeding, the
District Court entered an order on April 28, 2004 revoking Smart’s in forma pauperis
status in 21 cases, denying his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in 7 other
actions, and reserving judgment in 3 cases that were currently on appeal (the underlying
action being one of those pending before this Court at the time). The District Court
subsequently denied Smart’s motion to reconsider its decision on his in forma pauperis
status, and a timely appeal to this Court followed. See C.A. No. 04-2425.
Smart sought leave to proceed with his appeal in forma pauperis. However, in an
Order dated January 18, 2005, we denied Smart’s request and directed him to pay the
appellate filing and docketing fees or face dismissal of his appeal.1 Smart failed to pay
the required fees and his appeal was procedurally terminated. His request for en banc
rehearing was denied in an Order filed on March 23, 2005.2 The District Court thereafter
revoked Smart’s in forma pauperis status in the underlying action and directed that the
filing fees be paid by April 11, 2005 under pain of dismissal. Once again, Smart failed to
submit the requisite fees by the ordered deadline. Smart did, however, file a motion on
1
This Court denied Smart’s in forma pauperis requests in no fewer than 30 other
appeals. See C.A. Nos. 04-2253, 04-2384, 04-2385, 04-2386, 04-2387, 04-2423, 04-
2424, 04-2425, 04-2426, 04-2427, 04-2428, 04-2429, 04-2444, 04-2445, 04-2446, 04-
2447, 04-2448, 04-2449, 04-2450, 04-2451, 04-2452, 04-2453, 04-2454, 04-2455, 04-
2456, 04-2457, 04-2458, 04-2467, 04-2469, and 04-2460.
2
We note that all 30 of Smart’s other appeals were procedurally terminated as well.
3
April 15, 2005 requesting that he be afforded until April 18, 2005 to submit the filing
fees. After the proposed extension date passed (in fact, after several months had passed)
and no fees were forthcoming, the District Court entered an order on July 15, 2005
denying Smart’s motion and dismissing the action for his failure to pay the fees. Smart
did not seek review of the District Court’s decision dismissing his action. Instead, more
than seven months later, Smart returned to the District Court with a motion seeking to
have the complaint reinstated. The District Court denied the motion, noting that Smart
had yet to submit the necessary filing fees and, moreover, that he had failed to state any
grounds to support the request for reinstatement. Smart appeals that decision.
We dispose of this appeal with very little discussion. As is obvious from the facts
set forth above and from a review of the record, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to reinstate Smart’s complaint given his repeated failure to submit
the fees necessary to allow the action to proceed and given his failure to support the
request with grounds warranting reinstatement. See Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280
F.3d 262, 269 (3d Cir.2002) (District Court’s denial of post-judgment motion reviewed
for abuse of discretion). Any challenge Smart wished to raise with respect to the District
Court’s authority to consolidate various cases for purposes of considering his claimed
indigency should have been pursued on appeal following the revocation of his in forma
pauperis status and dismissal of his numerous causes of action. Accordingly, we will
affirm the District Court’s March 2, 2006 order.
4