Donald Francis Mackay v. ESTATE OF ELIZABETH MACKAY On Appeal From the United States District Court For the…

1
DLD-242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 09-1421
________________
DONALD FRANCIS MACKAY,
Appellant
v.
ESTATE OF ELIZABETH MACKAY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 2:01-cv-00065)
District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 9, 2009
Before: BARRY, AMBRO AND SMITH, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed : August 4, 2009)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 3 --

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s order1
denying the motion for abuse of discretion. See Toll Bros., Inc. v. Township of
Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir. 2009).
2
Over eight years ago Donald Francis Mackay filed suit in federal court related to
litigation in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court involving the
disposition of his mother’s estate. Mackay was apparently displeased with the
performance of that court, and named it as the defendant in his federal suit; he later
amended his complaint to include the estate as defendant. The District Court dismissed
Mackay’s original complaint as frivolous. It granted a motion to dismiss his amended
complaint, noting it lacked subject matter jurisdiction where there is no federal question
and the parties are not diverse. In 2002 this Court affirmed. In 2004 Mackay filed an
unsuccessful motion to reopen the case.
This appeal is prompted by Mackay’s second motion to reopen. In the January
2009 motion, Mackay presented a copy of a deed he alleged was stolen by an executor of
his mother’s estate and asked for various forms of relief in light of the “new information.”
The District Court denied the motion. We will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).1
Mackay’s motion is best understood as a request to amend his complaint after the
entry of final judgment. As the motion fails to even purport to correct the flaws for which
the suit was previously dismissed, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying it. Because this appeal lacks merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Mackay’s motion for expedited review is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --