Graham v. City of Philadelphia

1

LILLIAN GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-CV-4291

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM

JOHN MILTON YOUNGE, J.

Plaintiff Lillian Graham initiated this pro se civil action and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court previously dismissed her case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, but Graham returned with a request to reopen her case. For the following reasons, the Court will vacate its prior dismissal order, grant Graham leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss her Complaint. She will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint if she can correct the deficiencies noted by the Court.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY^[1]

Graham commenced this civil action on November 1, 2023, by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a Complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) In accordance with the court's procedures, upon initiation of this matter, the Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the Notice of Guidelines for Representing Yourself (Appearing “Pro Se”) in Federal Court and a copy of the Pro Se E-Notice (Consent Form) to Graham at 2221 W. Tioga Street, Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19140, which is the address Graham provided for herself in the Complaint. (ECF No. 2 at 2; ECF No. 3.)

Before the Court had an opportunity to address Graham's filings, the Clerk's Office's mailings to Graham were returned on November 17 and 21, by the U.S. Postal Service and marked as “Return to Sender” and “Unable to Forward.” (See Docket entry dated November 17, 2023 and ECF No. 4.) Consequently, in a November 29, 2023 Order, the Court directed Graham to provide a proper address for service in accordance with Local Rule 5.1(b), within fourteen days.^[2] (ECF No. 5.) Graham was advised that the failure to do so could result in court orders or other information not being timely delivered, which could affect the parties' legal rights. (Id.) She also was advised that if she failed to comply with the Order, her case may be dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis was held in abeyance. (Id.) The November 29 Order was mailed to Graham at the 2221 W. Tioga Street address and was returned to the court as “Return to Sender.” (See Docket entry dated December 14, 2023.) Having received no response from Graham providing an updated address or any other communication from Graham since she submitted her Complaint, by Order dated December 15, 2023, this matter was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 6.)

On March 15, 2024, Graham filed a Praecipe to Reinstate the Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Therein, Graham represented that she had not received “any mail that may have been sent to” her because “Postal System employees” were stealing her mail, “destroying some and returning some to return to sender.” (Id. at 2.) She averred that “[t]hey were told to hold all of my mail by the USPS office in Washington, D.C., but refuse to do so.” (Id.) She claimed that despite her request, her mail was not held from November 7, 2023 through February 21, 2024. (Id.) Graham indicated that the mail she was to receive, as well as the mail she sent, was stolen and the theft was to be investigated. (Id.) Graham also provided an updated address of P.O. Box 597, Feasterville, Pennsylvania 19053. (Id.)

By Order dated March 18, 2024, the Court denied Graham's request to re-open this matter and she appealed this decision. (See ECF Nos. 8-11.)^[3]On August 28, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal of the Praecipe and remanded the case for further proceedings. (ECF No. 14.) The Third Circuit directed this Court to consider whether Graham's motion to reinstate could be construed as asserting excusable neglect pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and the factors in Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) and In re Cendent Corp. PRIDES Litig., 235 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 2000). (Id.)

Rule 60(b)(1) allows a court to provide a litigant relief from an order or final judgment upon a showing of excusable neglect. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). Motions under this Rule “must be made within a reasonable time.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). In evaluating the basis for a Rule 60(b)(1) motion, courts consider: 1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant; 2) the length of the delay and its potential effect on judicial proceedings; 3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the movant's control; and 4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Orie v. Dist. Att'y Allegheny Cnty., 946 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir. 2019). When conducting this analysis, courts assess the totality of the circumstances. Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 193-94 (3d Cir. 2007).

Applying these factors, the Court finds that Graham's failure to comply with the Court's November 29, 2023 Order directing her to provide a current address was due to excusable neglect. At this early stage of the litigation, no Defendant will be prejudiced by permitting the case to move forward to statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). With regard to the second factor, while Graham filed the Praecipe four months after the dismissal of her case, this delay will have little impact on the continuation of the judicial proceedings. As to the third factor, Graham represents that she did not receive the Court's mailings because her mail was not held by the U.S. Postal Service as instructed. (See ECF No. 7 at 2.) Indeed, she contends that her mail was not held from November 7, 2023 through February 21, 2024, and further alleges that U.S. Postal Service employees have stolen her mail. (See id.) This suggests that the delay in Graham's response to the Court was not within her control. Finally, the Court recognizes that Graham provided the Clerk of Court with an updated address, which is suggestive that she did not act in bad faith during her absence from the prosecution of her case. Consequently, the Court will grant Graham relief under Rule 60(b)(1) on the basis of excusable neglect and vacate its December 15, 2023 dismissal order.^[4] Since Graham's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Complaint are now ripe for review, the Court will address those filings.

Turning to the Complaint, it is not entirely clear whom Graham intends to name as Defendants in this matter. Although she utilized a standard form to submit her Complaint, Graham included several copies of the caption, listing as Defendants the City of Philadelphia, the State of Pennsylvania, FEMA, “City of Phila + Licenses and Inspections”, “Phila. Police Dept. 39^th District,” “France Henriques - Demo Co.,” “FEMA - Main Headquarters Wash. D.C.,” the Philadelphia Water Department, the Philadelphia Electric Company, the Philadelphia Fire Department, Joe Brown Construction Company, “Perry CoCo - Licenses + Inspections,” “Supervisor of N. Phila. District,” and “Cecil B. Ave.” (See Compl. at 1-3.) In the portion of the form Complaint where the plaintiff is to list all defendants and provide addresses for them, Graham lists “City of Phila. + Licenses and Inspections,” “Phila. Police Dept. Headquarters,” “France Henriques - Demo Co.,” and FEMA. (Id. at 4.)

The Court understands Graham to raise claims based on circumstances surrounding the demolition of her home. While Graham checked the box to indicate federal question jurisdiction, the nature of her claims are difficult to discern because they are presented in a vague and disjointed manner. She alleges that the event giving rise to her claims occurred at 2221 W. Tioga Street in Philadelphia. (Id. at 5.) In response to the question on the form to list the date and approximate time of the event giving rise to her claims, Graham indicates “On Oct. 14^th, 2021 approximately between 8 PM & 9PM Actual took place on Nov. 2^nd 2021 6:30 AM.” (Id.)

Graham alleges that she was watching television when she heard “the fire emergency” and got up to see where “it” was going and discovered that “they” were at her home. (Id.) She asserts that she did not call for them, but “the Fire Dept., Police, H2O, Electric, Gas, and L&I all came once.” (Id.) She claims that “[t]his was planned” and was retaliation because she complained about her home being severely damaged from “two major disasters and a tropical storm.” (Id.) She further claims that she was “discriminated for proper assist.” (Id.) Graham alleges that “the Senator started an investigation,” she “signed for the investigation on or about October 7, 2021” and by October 14, “Phila” was trying to demolish her home. (Id.) According to Graham, “there was another inspection coming” and “they had to get rid of evidence.” (Id.)

Graham claims that she “was held under false arrest by the 39^th Police District, and not allowed to go in my home I was held for false arrest until the following day, still was not allow in my home. I went down to City Hall to file an injunction.” (Id.) Graham alleges that upon her return, “they” had broken into her home and “broken into every locked door and stole money, tv's, computers, jewelry, clothing, phones, stereo equipment, tools, they cut the door off my safe and left it on the side of the wall.” (Id.) Graham further claims that “they took every dollar, saving of 28 yrs, bundles of money.” (Id.) She states that “there is more to be told” and that she will “send an amend later” but that she was overwhelmed emotionally. (Id.) Graham seeks monetary damages as relief. (Id. at 6.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court grants Graham leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that she is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil...