-
Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Pruden v. Long Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3070 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Pruden v. Long" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1375. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1375 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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. AMENDED DLD-44 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3070 ___________ RONALD PRUDEN, Appellant v. DOCTOR LONG; INMATE EMPLOYMENT WORKER, name unknown at SCI Smithfield ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-02007) District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 November 8, 2007 Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 27, 2008) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Appellant, Ronald Pruden, appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his post-judgment motion as moot. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On October 12, 2006, Pruden filed a complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted as unopposed. Approximately three months later, Pruden filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel and the consolidation of his cases. The District Court denied the motion as moot. Pruden appeals from the denial of his motion.1 Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie,
239 F.3d 307, 322 (3d Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we will construe Pruden’s motion, which requests the appointment of counsel and the consolidation of his multiple cases, as seeking post- judgment relief. To the extent that Pruden sought reconsideration of the District Court’s order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), his motion was untimely. To the extent that Pruden sought relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), his motion fails to state adequate grounds for relief. Accordingly, the denial of Pruden’s motion was proper. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that this appeal has no arguable basis in law or fact and will dismiss it pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Pruden’s motion for counsel and motion for a preliminary injunction are denied. 2 1 We note that Pruden’s notice of appeal, filed on July 11, 2007, is untimely as to the District Court’s order entered on March 28, 2007, dismissing his complaint. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
Document Info
Docket Number: 07-3070
Filed Date: 3/27/2008
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021