AMENDED GLD-253 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2776
___________
CHANDAN S. VORA, Appellant
v.
ALL CONSPIRATORS; CITY COPS; CCC JUDGES;
CAMBRIA COUNTY; JAMES WHITE; TONY KOVALIC;
CRAIG FOUST; KRISTEN DENNE;
RONALD REPAK, City Attorney; DON MICHAELS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-00253)
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 9, 2012
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 27, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
1
Chandan S. Vora, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the
District Court’s orders dismissing her complaint and denying her motions for
reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.
I.
In October 2011, Vora received a legal notice from the City of Johnstown that her
home would be demolished because it was, among other things, unsafe for human
habitation and incapable of being repaired. (Dkt. No. 13, p. 49.) She then filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis and a rambling twenty-eight page complaint (with over 250
pages of attachments) against several Defendants she considered “conspirators” in an
illegal plot to destroy her home and violate her civil rights. By order entered December
22, 2011, the District Court granted Vora’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, but
dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 1 (Dkt. No. 12.)
Approximately two months later, Vora filed a motion to consolidate numerous
cases. The District Court construed it as a motion to reconsider its order dismissing her
complaint and denied it on April 9, 2012. Vora then filed a motion to vacate on April 19,
2012, followed by a motion for stay and a motion for extension of time. Again, the
District Court considered all of these motions as requesting reconsideration of its
dismissal order, and denied them on May 7, 2012. Vora filed a notice of appeal on June
6, 2012.
1
By the time the District Court issued its order, Vora had filed several motions for
injunctive relief, all of which were denied as moot.
2
II.
Vora appeals from the District Court’s orders denying her motions for
reconsideration and its order dismissing her complaint. As discussed below, we have
jurisdiction to review the former, but not the latter.
Vora filed several motions seeking reconsideration of the District Court’s order
dismissing her complaint. A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment must be
filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Vora’s
motions were not timely as they were filed more than twenty-eight days after the District
Court dismissed her complaint. However, her appeal of the District Court’s order
denying them was timely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review “a
timely appealed order disposing of an untimely motion for reconsideration.” Long v. Atl.
City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 446 n.19 (3d Cir. 2012).
We review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. Lazaridis v.
Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010). A motion for reconsideration is a limited
vehicle used “to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). A judgment may be altered or amended if the party
seeking reconsideration shows one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice. Id. Vora did not identify any of these factors in her motions,
3
wherein she merely rehashed arguments that were presented in her previous filings. The
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motions for reconsideration.
As for Vora’s appeal of the District Court’s December 22, 2011 order dismissing
her complaint, she had until January 21, 2012, to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal in civil case must be filed within thirty days). She
did not timely file any motion to toll the appeals period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)-(6);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b); see also Poole v. Fam. Ct. of New Castle Cnty., 368 F.3d
263, 269 (3d Cir. 2004) (relief under Rules 4(a)(5) and (6) requires filing the appropriate
motion). The June 6, 2012 notice of appeal was untimely. Therefore, we do not have
jurisdiction over her appeal of the dismissal order. Berke v. Bloch, 242 F.3d 131, 136
(3d Cir. 2001).
III.
We will summarily affirm the District Court’s May 7, 2012 order because no
substantial question is presented on appeal. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Vora’s
motion for an injunction is denied as moot.
4