Wilson v. Philadelphia

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Wilson v. Philadelphia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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).