Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-6-2009
Wilson v. Philadelphia
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3260
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Wilson v. Philadelphia" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1914.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1914
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3260
___________
HAROLD C. WILSON,
Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; RONALD D. CASTILLE; LYNNE ABRAHAM;
JOHN JACK MCMAHON; and JANE AND JOHN DOE Employees of the City of
Philadelphia, Individually and in their Official Capacities,
Appellees.
___________
Appeal from the Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(No. 04-cv-5396)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill
Argued: Thursday, November 20, 2008
Before: FUENTES, HARDIMAN, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: February 6, 2009)
Paul Ellis, Jr. (Argued)
Law Office of Paul Ellis & Assoc.
P.O. Box 53105
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel for Appellant
Kelly S. Diffily (Argued)
City of Philadelphia Law Department
1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-0000
Ronald Eisenberg (Argued)
Office of the District Attorney
Three South Penn Square
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499
Counsel for Appellees
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
On June 1, 2007, Appellant Harold Wilson moved to reopen a civil rights case he
had filed against prosecutors in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. Wilson’s
case had been dismissed for failure to prosecute, without prejudice, more than a year
earlier. In his efforts to reopen the case, Wilson presented the District Court with
evidence indicating that his attorney was entirely at fault for the failure to prosecute, and
that Wilson himself had been deceived by the attorney into thinking the case was
progressing in an appropriate manner. On June 29, 2007, the District Court denied the
motion to reopen, and this appeal followed shortly thereafter. As pointed out by the
Appellees, at the time Wilson filed his motion to reopen, the statute of limitations had not
yet run on many of Wilson’s claims.
In view of the unusual posture of this case, we will vacate and remand for further
consideration of this matter in light of Dunbar v. Triangle Lumber and Supply Co., 816
F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1987), as well as the recent Supreme Court decision Van De Kamp v.
Goldstein, No. 07-854, — U.S. —, 2009 WL 160430 (Jan. 26, 2009).
2