Michael Wiggins v. Wayne MacManiman, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SHWARTZ, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. CLD-333

Case: 17-2148

Document: 003112740064

Page: 1

CLD-333

Date Filed: 09/29/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-2148
___________
MICHAEL WIGGINS,
Appellant
v.
WAYNE MACMANIMAN; 32BJ SEIU

____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 2-17-cv-00376)
District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh
____________________________________

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 10, 2017

Before: SHWARTZ, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 29, 2017)

Case: 17-2148

Document: 003112740064

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/29/2017

_________
O P I N I O N*
_________
PER CURIAM
Michal Wiggins appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his
amended complaint. We will vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Wiggins is a member of Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ. He
filed suit pro se in state court against the Union and his Union representative
(collectively, “the Union”) alleging that the Union breached its duty to fairly represent
him. In particular, Wiggins alleged that the Union failed to investigate, and refused to
bring to arbitration, a grievance that he filed over his employer’s decision not to award
him a certain position.
The Union removed Wiggins’s complaint to federal court1 and filed a motion to
dismiss it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The District Court permitted Wiggins to amend
his complaint and denied the Union’s motion as moot. The Union then filed a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the amended complaint as well. Wiggins did not file a brief in
opposition to that motion as required by Rule 7.1(c) of the District Court’s Local Civil
Rules. For that reason, the District Court granted the Union’s motion as unopposed

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
The Union asserted that Wiggins’s claims arise under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. We do not decide the issue, but we note
that his claims may arise under the National Labor Relations Act instead. See Felice v.
Sever, 985 F.2d 1221, 1226 (3d Cir. 1993).
2

Case: 17-2148

Document: 003112740064

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/29/2017

pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) and, with no further analysis, dismissed Wiggins’s amended
complaint with prejudice. Wiggins appeals.
We will vacate and remand. We have long recognized “the policy of law which
favors disposition of litigation on its merits.” Marshall v. Sielaff, 492 F.2d 917, 918 (3d
Cir. 1974). Thus, we have held that District Courts may not grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
as unopposed and dismiss a complaint “solely on the basis of [a] local rule without any
analysis of whether the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
as provided in [Rule] 12(b)(6).” Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir.
1991). That is because such a dismissal is not really a dismissal for failure to state a
claim but is instead a sanction. Id. And before District Courts take the drastic step of
dismissing a complaint as a sanction, they generally must consider the factors set forth in
Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.3d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). See In re
Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236, 246 (3d Cir. 2013).2
The District Court failed to do so. We could still affirm if we concluded that
Wiggins’s amended complaint does indeed fail to state a claim, but we decline to decide
that issue in the first instance. See Stackhouse, 951 F.2d at 30. We note merely that our
review of Wiggins’s amended complaint and the Union’s motion suggests that Wiggins’s
allegations warrant at least some consideration on the merits by the District Court.

2

There are exceptions to these principles—such as when a counseled party truly does not
oppose a motion, see Stackhouse, 951 F.2d at 30, when a party fails to comply with a rule
despite a specific directive to do so, see id., or when a party’s conduct makes adjudication
of the case impossible, see Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 411 (3d Cir. 2011)—but none
of them applies here.
3

Case: 17-2148

Document: 003112740064

Page: 4

Date Filed: 09/29/2017

For these reasons, we will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand
for further proceedings.3

Wiggins argues that the Union’s motion to dismiss was improper because the District
Court denied the Union’s previous motion to dismiss. That argument constitutes a basis
for opposing the motion, not for ignoring it. In any event, that argument is frivolous
because the District Court denied the Union’s previous motion as moot in light of the
amendment of Wiggins’s complaint, not on the merits. Although we are remanding as
explained above, Wiggins is cautioned not to ignore filing deadlines in the future.
3

4