Opinion
No. 07-3260.
Argued: Thursday, November 20, 2008.
February 6, 2009.
Appeal from the Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 04-cv-5396) District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill.
Before: FUENTES, HARDIMAN, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
Paul Ellis, Jr. (Argued) Law Office of Paul Ellis Assoc. P.O. Box 53105 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Appellant.
Kelly S. Diffily (Argued) City of Philadelphia Law Department 1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-0000 Ronald Eisenberg (Argued) Office of the District Attorney Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499 Counsel for Appellees.
On June 1, 2007, Appellant Harold Wilson moved to reopen a civil rights case he had filed against prosecutors in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. Wilson's case had been dismissed for failure to prosecute, without prejudice, more than a year earlier. In his efforts to reopen the case, Wilson presented the District Court with evidence indicating that his attorney was entirely at fault for the failure to prosecute, and that Wilson himself had been deceived by the attorney into thinking the case was progressing in an appropriate manner. On June 29, 2007, the District Court denied the motion to reopen, and this appeal followed shortly thereafter. As pointed out by the Appellees, at the time Wilson filed his motion to reopen, the statute of limitations had not yet run on many of Wilson's claims.
In view of the unusual posture of this case, we will vacate and remand for further consideration of this matter in light ofDunbar v. Triangle Lumber and Supply Co., 816 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1987), as well as the recent Supreme Court decision Van De Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854, ___ U.S.___, 2009 WL 160430 (Jan. 26, 2009).