Jerry Daniels v. Peter Damiter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: March 30, 2026
• Docket: 25-3173
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-100 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-3173 ___________

JERRY JERON DANIELS, Appellant

v.

PETER DAMITER; KATHY J. BRITTAIN; JENNIFER NEWBERRY; KERI MOORE; D. VARNER; BETH LAZUSKY; MELISSA MORGAIN, SCI – Frackville Records Supervisor ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-01539) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion ____________________________________

Submitted on Appellant’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion Demonstrating Imminent Danger and 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 March 19, 2026 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 30, 2026) _________

OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. State inmate Jerry Daniels appeals pro se from the District Court’s order denying

his post-judgment motion for the appointment of counsel and other relief. Because this

appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District

Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

In September 2023, Daniels filed a civil action for monetary damages, alleging

that he was “illegally” incarcerated and subjected to “involuntary slavery” in violation of

various constitutional provisions. D.Ct. ECF No. 13 at 5-6. On July 18, 2024, on motion

of the defendants, the District Court dismissed the action as “clearly barred by Heck [v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)].” D.Ct. ECF No. 26 at 6-7. Daniels did not appeal.

Nearly one year later, on June 30, 2025, Daniels filed a letter in which he again

asserted that he was unlawfully imprisoned and requested the appointment of counsel.

The District Court denied the motion, which it also liberally construed as a Rule 60(b)

motion for relief from judgment. Daniels appeals in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 1

Daniels’ notice of appeal is timely only as to the District Court’s October 24, 2025

post-judgment order. We have jurisdiction over that order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See

Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986). We review for abuse

of discretion both the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, see Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536

1 The District Court granted Daniels permission to proceed IFP on appeal, and the Appellees have not challenged that order. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP and motion to demonstrate imminent danger are denied as unnecessary.

2 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008), United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724, 732 (3d Cir. 2010),

and the denial of a motion for the appointment of counsel, see Parham v. Johnson, 126

F.3d 454, 458 (3d Cir. 1997). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s decision if

the appeal does not present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P.

10.6.

We discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of Rule 60(b)

relief. In his motion, Daniels argued that his civil action should not be barred by Heck

because an arrest warrant never issued in his underlying criminal case. See D.Ct. ECF

No. 31 at 1. However, his assertion failed to present any grounds for relief under Rule

60(b). As the District Court noted, “while the absence of an arrest warrant, if true,” could

provide grounds to challenge his conviction, it did not “establish that any court or other

entity had invalidated the conviction or sentence as required by Heck.” D.Ct. ECF No.

33 at 2. As Daniels failed to demonstrate any basis for relief from the judgment of

dismissal, the District Court also did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for the

appointment of counsel. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court.