Home/Third Circuit/Antoine Poteat v. Gerald Lydon

Antoine Poteat v. Gerald Lydon

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided April 1, 2026·No. 25-1119·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1119 ___________

ANTOINE POTEAT, Appellant v.

GERALD LYDON, Individually and Official Capacity of Pennsylvania State Police; CHAD LABOUR, Individually and Official Capacity of Pennsylvania State Police; NICHOLAS GOLDSMITH, Individually and Official Capacity of Pennsylvania State Police; JUSTIN JULIUS, Individually and Official Capacity of Pennsylvania State Police; GREGORY EMERY, Individually and Official Capacity of Pennsylvania State Police; BRIAN KONOPKA, Individually and Official Capacity of Pennsylvania State Police; PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Individually and Official Capacity of Pennsylvania State Police; HEATHER GALLAGHER, Individually and Official Capacity of Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office; BETHANY ZAMPOGNA, Individually and Official Capacity of Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office; JOSEPH STAUFFER, Individually and Official Capacity of Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office; JAMES MARTIN, Individually and Official Capacity of Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office; JARED HANNA, Individually and Official Capacity of Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office; EDWARD RESSLER, Individually and Official Capacity of Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office; LEHIGH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-03117) District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 18, 2026 Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 1, 2026) OPINION * ___________

PER CURIAM

In 2021, pro se appellant Antoine Poteat initiated a federal civil action in the

District Court bringing constitutional and tort claims. His claims were dismissed, and

this Court affirmed the dismissal in 2023. See Poteat v. Lydon, No. 22-2114, 2023 WL

6620368, at *3 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2023). A year later, in October 2024, Poteat filed two

motions for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in the District Court,

seeking reinstatement of his case and relief on his claims. Soon after, Poteat filed an

amended Rule 60(b) motion, incorporating the arguments from his other motions. On

December 16, 2024, the District Court dismissed Poteat’s first two motions as moot,

noting that he had filed an amended Rule 60(b) motion.

Poteat timely appealed. 1 However, we discern no error in the District Court’s

dismissal of Poteat’s first two Rule 60(b) motions as moot after he filed a third amended

Rule 60(b) motion that incorporated the arguments in his prior motions. 2 See Budget

* 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 District Court granted Poteat’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), deeming his notice of appeal to be timely filed. 2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as the District Court’s order completely disposed of Poteat’s first two post-judgment Rule 60(b) motions by dismissing them as moot, and that is the entire scope of this appeal. See Isidor

2 Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008) (reviewing disposition of Rule

60(b) motions for abuse of discretion); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810,

817 (3d Cir. 1982) (“[M]atters of docket control . . . are committed to the sound

discretion of the district court.”). Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s

December 16, 2024 order. 3

Paiewonsky Assocs., Inc. v. Sharp Props., Inc., 998 F.2d 145, 150 (3d Cir. 1993) (explaining the appealability of post-judgment rulings); Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (“[M]ost post judgment orders are final decisions within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as long as the district court has completely disposed of the matter.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 We grant Poteat’s motion for leave to file two reply briefs and to exceed the word count in those filings and deny his remaining motions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Antoine Poteat v. Gerald Lydon, (3d Cir. 2026).

Antoine Poteat v. Gerald Lydon (Antoine Poteat v. Gerald Lydon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. (Ten Cases) the State of Alaska, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Boroughs, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Champion International Corporation, a New York Corporation Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, a Maine Corporation Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation International Paper Company, a New York Corporation Kimberly Clark Corporation, a Delaware Corporation the Mead Corporation, an Ohio Corporation Potlatch Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Scott Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation St. Regis Paper Company, a New York Corporation Union Camp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co., a Wisconsin Corporation Westvaco Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., a New York Corporation Western Paper Company, a Division of Hammermill Paper Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation and Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada Corporation. Appeal of State of Alaska, in No. 81-2341. State of Colorado v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, D/B/A Zellerbach Paper Company, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company and Dixon Paper Company. Appeal of State of Colorado, in No. 81-2342. State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities v. Boise Cascade Corp., Champion International Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Potlatch, Inc., Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Inc., a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Inc. A Division of Unisource Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Washington, in No. 81-2343. State of Missouri v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company Corporation, Butler Paper Company, Graham Paper Company, Bermingham & Prosser Company, Distribix, Inc. Paper Supply Company, and Shaughnessy-Kniep-Hawe Paper Company. Appeal of State of Missouri, in No. 81-2344. The State of Oregon, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Its Cities, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, Division of Unisource Corporation, Western Paper Company, Division of Hammermill Paper Company, and Zellerbach Paper Company, Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Appeal of State of Oregon, in No. 81-2345. The State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions, Public Agencies and Districts Within the State Similarly Situated v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Butler Paper Company, an Affiliate of Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., J. C. Paper Company, an Affiliate of Wausau Paper Mills Co., Nationwide Papers, Incorporated, a Division of Champion International Corp., Seaboard Paper Company, an Affiliate of Mead Corp., Zellerbach Paper Company, a Division of Crown Zellerbach Corp., Blake, Moffitt & Towne, a Division of Saxon Industries, Inc., Carpenter-Offutt Paper Company, a Division of Unisource Corp., Ingram Paper Company and Noland Paper Company (Carpenter/offutt Paper Co.). Appeal of State of California, in No. 81-2346. Nebraska, State of v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Co., Westvaco Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Kimberly Clark and Western Paper Co., a Division of Hammermill Paper Company. Appeal of State of Nebraska, in No. 81-2347. State of Iowa, by Its Attorney General, Richard C. Turner v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corporation the Mead Corporation Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation Hammermill Paper Company International Paper Company Potlatch Corporation Scott Paper Company St. Regis Paper Company Union Camp Corporation Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. And Weyerhaeuser Company. Appeal of State of Iowa, in No. 81-2348. Montana, State of v. Boise Cascade Corp. Champion International Corp. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp. Hammermill Paper Co. International Paper Co. Mead Corp. The Potlatch Corp. Scott Paper Co. St. Regis Paper Co. Union Camp Corp. Wausau Paper Mills Co. Westvaco Corp. Weyerhaeuser Co. Crown Zellerbach Corp. And Kimberly Clark. Appeal of State of Montana, in No. 81-2349. State of Arkansas v. Boise Cascade Corporation, Champion International Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Hammermill Paper Company, International Paper Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, the Mead Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Scott Paper Company, St. Regis Paper Company, Union Camp Corporation, Wausau Paper Mills Company, Westvaco Corporation, Western Paper Company, Graham Paper Company. Appeal of State of Arkansas, in No. 81-2350
685 F.2d 810 (Third Circuit, 1982)
Robert and Beverly Ohntrup v. Firearms Center, Inc. v. Makina Ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
802 F.2d 676 (Third Circuit, 1986)
Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White
536 F.3d 244 (Third Circuit, 2008)