Anthony A. Kachikwu v. Lydia King Kachikwu

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4497
________________
ANTHONY A. KACHIKWU,
Appellant
v.
LYDIA KING KACHIKWU
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civ. No. 05-cv-2995)
District Judge: Dennis M. Cavanaugh
____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 19, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, SMITH AND *VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed October 26, 2006 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
*Honorable Van Antwerpen assumed senior status on October 23, 2006.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM
Anthony Kachikwu appeals the dismissal of his pro se complaint and denial of his
subsequent motions for reconsideration by the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
On May 26, 2005, Anthony Kachikwu filed a pro se complaint against his wife,
Lydia Kachikwu, stemming from a property dispute over a condominium located in
Roxbury, Massachusetts. Anthony alleged that Lydia excluded him from part-ownership
of the property and certain profits made from the property. On June 28, 2005, the District
Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2),
due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over Lydia. Anthony filed a motion for
reconsideration which the District Court denied on July 26, 2005. Anthony filed a second
motion for reconsideration requesting a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284;
the District Court denied the motion. Anthony then filed a third motion again asking for a
three-judge panel pursuant to § 2284. The District Court denied the motion on September
26, 2005. Anthony filed a notice of appeal on October 3, 2005.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the
underlying issue solely involves a question of law, our standard of review is plenary. See
O’Leary v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 923 F.2d 1062, 1064-65 (3d Cir. 1991).
We note that Anthony’s notice of appeal is timely only as to the order entered on

-- 2 of 4 --

3
September 26, 2005. This is because his second and third motions for reconsideration did
not toll the time for taking an appeal from the District Court’s June 28, 2005, judgment.
See Turner v. Evans, 726 F.2d 112, 114 (3d Cir. 1984); Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d
637, 639 n.1 (3d Cir. 1991); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Accordingly, Anthony
cannot obtain review of the original dismissal order or the denial of his first two motions
for reconsideration.
The September 26 order denied Anthony’s motion for a three-judge panel.
Anthony waived this issue on appeal because he failed to make any arguments in his brief
in support of a three-judge panel. See United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir.
2005). Further, there are simply no grounds for convening a three-judge panel under
§ 2284 in this case. Under § 2284, a three-judge panel may be convened only under
limited circumstances, such as to preside over “action[s] ... challenging the
constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of
any statewide legislative body.” 28 U.S.C. § 2284; see also Page v. Bartels, 248 F.3d
175, 181 (3d Cir. 2001).
Even if we were to liberally construe Anthony’s third motion for
reconsideration/motion for three-judge panel as including a personal jurisdiction
argument, or even if we could somehow assert jurisdiction over the District Court’s
original dismissal, cf. Eberhart v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 403 (2005) (per curiam), his
claim fails. For substantially the reasons given by the District Court, Anthony has not

-- 3 of 4 --

4
shown that the parties have had any forum-related activities that fall within the minimum
contacts framework of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and
its progeny.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 4 of 4 --