Richard Owens v. Frank Pravenzaro, Somerset County Sheriff

1
DLD-409 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2613
___________
RICHARD OWENS,
Appellant
v.
FRANK PRAVENZARO, SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF; CHARLES M. O'NEILL,
WARDEN, SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL; JOHN DOE (NAME UNKNOWN);
BALLARD, PHYSICIAN AT SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL; NURSE REPTUS-QUINN,
MEDICAL SUPERVISOR
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civil No. 3-09-cv-00254)
District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper
____________________________________
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
August 29, 2013
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 13, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Richard Owens is a New Jersey prisoner. In January 2009, he commenced this
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging: (1) cruel and unusual punishment
while incarcerated at the Somerset County Jail (“SCJ”) based on the conditions of his
confinement; (2) a physical assault by an unidentified SCJ official; (3) deliberate
indifference by SCJ medical staff to his serious medical conditions; and (4) tampering
with his legal correspondence by SCJ officials.
In November 2010, after more than 120 days of inactivity, the Clerk issued notice
that Owens’ case would be dismissed for lack of prosecution in thirty days in accordance
with District of New Jersey Local Civil Rule 41.1(a) (the local rule counterpart to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b)). In December 2010, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case
without prejudice. In December 2012, Owens moved to reopen the case and for
appointment of counsel, asserting that his failure to prosecute was due to protracted
mental illness.
The District Court denied Owens’ motion to reopen, which it construed as brought
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The District Court observed that Owens
waited nearly two years before requesting the case be reopened and that, despite claiming
mental incapacity, Owens remained capable of pursuing relief contemporaneously in
another case pending before the District Court. See Owens v. Volunteers of Am. Del.
Valley-Promise, D.N.J. Civil No. 1:08-cv-04612. Accordingly, the District Court
concluded that Owens failed to seek relief “within a reasonable time” as required by the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
rule, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), and failed to establish “exceptional circumstances”
justifying relief. See Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002).
The District Court also denied the motion seeking appointment of counsel as moot.
Owens appeals pro se. Because we granted him leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we must screen this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine
whether it should be dismissed as frivolous. An appeal is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We
conclude that there is no arguable basis to find that the District Court abused its
discretion in denying Owens’ motion to reopen for the reasons set forth in its opinion. We
also agree that his motion seeking appointment of counsel was properly denied.
Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

-- 3 of 3 --