Salahuddin Smart v. Aramark Inc, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 5. ALD-253

Case: 14-3782

Document: 003112008107

Page: 1

ALD-253

Date Filed: 07/02/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3782
___________
SALAHUDDIN F. SMART,
Appellant
v.

ARAMARK INC; JEFFREY BURRELL, ARAMARK SUPERVISOR;
CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
DAVID OWENS, WARDEN; CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN
FREEHOLDERS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 1-14-cv-03007)
District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb
____________________________________
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
June 25, 2015
Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 2, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3782

Document: 003112008107

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/02/2015

PER CURIAM
Appellant, Salahuddin F. Smart, appeals from the District Court’s August 15, 2014
order. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
I.
In May 2014, while he was incarcerated at the Camden County Correctional
Facility (CCCF), Smart commenced this civil rights action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that his First Amendment rights had been
violated when he was forced to shave his beard in order to work in the prison kitchen.
Smart claimed that the prison’s policy was discriminatory against all Jewish and Muslim
prisoners, and that the prison could have provided “beard nets” in order to meet hygienic
standards without interfering with prisoners’ religious beliefs. Smart named as
defendants: David S. Owens, Jr., the warden of the CCCF; Aramark Inc., the prison’s
food supplier; Jeffrey Burrell, an Aramark supervisor; the Department of Corrections
(DOC); and the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Smart sought one million
dollars in damages from each of the defendants except defendant Burrell, from whom he
sought $10,000.00.
The District Court granted Smart’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
and reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), ultimately concluding
that it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Specifically, the District Court determined that: (1) the DOC and
Warden Owens (in his official capacity) were not subject to suit under § 1983, see Will v.
2

Case: 14-3782

Document: 003112008107

Page: 3

Date Filed: 07/02/2015

Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); (2) Aramark, defendant Burrell, and
the Freeholders could not be liable under § 1983 based on a theory of respondeat
superior, see Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988); and (3) Smart
failed to state a violation of his rights under either the First or Fourteenth Amendments.
The District Court further determined that the deficiencies in the complaint were not
amenable to cure by re-pleading.1 In concluding that Smart had failed to state a claim,
the District Court specifically noted that its order dismissing Smart’s complaint would
qualify as a “strike” for the purpose of the “three strikes rule.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
(disallowing IFP status to litigants who have filed three actions or appeals dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim).
Approximately nine weeks later, Smart filed a motion challenging the District
Court’s order. Smart objected to the District Court’s designation of the complaint as a
“strike” under the “three strikes rule,” and argued that the District Court had erred in
determining that he had failed to state a constitutional claim. Although Smart cited Rule
60(b)(6) in support of his motion, the District Court construed it as an “untimely and
meritless motion for reconsideration that merely bears a Rule 60 designation.” (Op. 3,
ECF No. 6.) The District Court further determined that, in any event, Smart had failed to
demonstrate that he was entitled to Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Accordingly, by order entered

1

The District Court recognized that Smart sought class certification on behalf of all
Jewish, Muslim, or Christian prisoners who had to shave their beards in order to work in
the kitchen, but denied the request as moot. The District Court did not address whether
Smart had exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
3

Case: 14-3782

Document: 003112008107

Page: 4

Date Filed: 07/02/2015

August 15, 2014, the District Court denied Smart’s motion. Smart timely appealed from
the District Court’s order.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.2 Whether
Smart’s post-judgment motion is construed as arising under Rule 59(e) or 60(b), we
review the District Court’s order denying it for abuse of discretion. See Max’s Seafood
Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999); Brown v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 350
F.3d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 2003).
First, to the extent that the District Court construed the motion as seeking
reconsideration under Rule 59(e), the court acted within its discretion in denying it as
untimely.3 Pursuant to Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed
no later than twenty-eight days after the entry of the District Court’s order. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e). In this case, the District Court entered its order dismissing the complaint on

We lack jurisdiction to review the District Court’s underlying order dismissing the
complaint. The District Court denied the complaint by order entered May 29, 2014.
Smart’s notice of appeal, dated August 23, 2014, was untimely with respect to the May
29, 2014 order, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), and Smart’s July 31, 2014 post-judgment
motion did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A)(iv) and (vi); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
2

Rather than relying on Rule 59(e), the District Court deemed Smart’s motion untimely
under Local Rule 7.1(i), which allows for only a fourteen-day reconsideration period.
See D.N.J. L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). We note, however, that Local Rule 7.1(i) explicitly states
that it does not supersede Rule 59(e). See id. (providing for a fourteen-day
reconsideration period “unless otherwise provided by statute or rule (such as Fed. R. Civ.
3

4

Case: 14-3782

Document: 003112008107

Page: 5

Date Filed: 07/02/2015

May 29, 2014. Smart then had twenty-eight days, or until June 26, 2014, to seek
reconsideration. Smart’s motion, dated July 25, 2014, was therefore untimely.
Furthermore, to the extent that Smart invoked Rule 60(b)(6) in support of his
motion, the District Court acted within its discretion in determining that he was not
entitled to relief under this “catchall” provision. Rule 60(b)(6) “provides for
extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). We have made clear that a Rule 60(b) motion
“may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, and . . . legal error, without more[,] does
not warrant relief.” United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003) (quotation
and citation omitted). Given that Smart alleged nothing more than legal error in his
motion, he failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to this extraordinary relief.
Finding no substantial question raised by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s order. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

P. 50, 52 and 59)”). Given that Smart’s motion was untimely under both Rules, any error
by the District Court in this regard was harmless.
5