Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 1 of 12
_______________________________
:
SHADRACK POYON NEYOR, :
: Civil Action
Plaintiff, : No. 07-826 (DRD)
:
v. : O P I N I O N
SCOTT WEBER, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
_______________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Page -1-
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 2 of 12
with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
§ 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act . . . many of which are
States, 98 F.3d 752, 755 (3d Cir. 1996). A crucial part of the
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); United States v. Day, 969
F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). The Court should “accept as true all
Page -2-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 3 of 12
can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable
902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). The Court need not, however, lend credit
(3d Cir. 1981) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972)).
BACKGROUND
Page -3-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 4 of 12
1, 3-5.
Page -4-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 5 of 12
Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to the REAL ID Act, Pub. L.
109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). See id., Docket Nos.
filed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
on May 24, 2006, that is, the date when the Neyor Court rendered
its decision. See Neyor v. Atty Gen. U.S.A., 06-cv-2807 (3d Cir.)
answer, see id., Docket No. 20, and on June 19, 2006, Plaintiff
submitted his reply. See id., Docket No. 24. Basing its decision
6, 2006. See id., Docket Nos. 25 and 26. Plaintiff’s time to file
Docket.
See id., Docket Nos. 2 and 3. After obtaining IFP status and
Page -5-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 6 of 12
July 17, 2006, see id., Docket No. 4, Plaintiff filed another
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
5, 2006, and twenty five days after that filing, Plaintiff made a
Court of Appeals on the very next day. See id., Docket No. 5. On
Docket No. 10, and Neyor v. Atty Gen. U.S.A., 06-cv-2807, Docket
Page -6-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 7 of 12
On February 20, 2007, one week after his time to file a brief
access to courts, see id at 5A, 5B, 6, and (2) seeks the remedy in
id. at 7.
Page -7-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 8 of 12
DISCUSSION
U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989); see also Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d
provided are those that the inmates need in order to attack their
Page -8-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 9 of 12
and (2) must show that prison officials caused him past or imminent
decision of the Neyor Court could not have been frustrated by the
actions of Defendants.
which is still underway and, therefore, could not have been “lost”
Page -9-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 10 of 12
B. Deprivation of Property
Page -10-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 11 of 12
v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36 (1982), the Supreme
Co. Correctional Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 421 n.12 (3d. Cir. 2000)
(citing United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S.
Page -11-
Case 2:07-cv-00826-DRD-ES Document 2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 12 of 12
CONCLUSION
Page -12-