Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-24-02292/USCOURTS-ca3-24-02292-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

BLD-029 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-2292

___________

ALPHONSO NICHOLAS FAGGIOLO, 

 Appellant

v.

COUNTY OF DELAWARE, A Political Subdivision of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania; DELAWARE COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU, An Agency of the 

Treasurer's Office of the County of Delaware; JOHN VAN ZELST; SUSAN BROCHET; 

KAREN DUFFY, In their Individual and Official Capacity 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No.2-23-cv-01904) 

District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellees’ Motion for Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

November 14, 2024

Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 5, 2024) 

_________

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.

Case: 24-2292 Document: 16 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024
2

Appellant Alphonso Faggiolo, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court 

order granting Appellees’ motion for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Appellees have filed a motion for summary affirmance of the District Court’s order.1 (CA 

10.) As no substantial question is raised by Faggiolo’s appeal, we grant Appellees’ 

motion and will summarily affirm the decision of the District Court. 

I.

This matter relates to a property in the borough of Ridley Park, located in Delaware 

County, Pennsylvania. (ECF 1 at 7.) In May 2023, Alphonso Faggiolo filed a pro se 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging that the 

Defendants collectively violated his constitutional rights by assessing and attempting to 

collect real estate taxes on his property. (ECF 1 at 7.) Faggiolo sought both damages and 

injunctive relief. (ECF 1 at 9-10, 92-95.) 

All Defendants filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. (ECF 7, 9, 10, 11.) Defendants argued, inter alia, that the District 

Court lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act and the principle of comity. (ECF 

1

 Faggiolo filed a response opposing summary affirmance, (CA 13) then filed a motion 

to strike Appellees’ motion, arguing that it was untimely under Third Circuit Local 

Appellate Rule 27.4(b) since it was filed six days after his pro se brief was due. (CA 14.) 

His point is well taken, but as Appellees correctly argue, “the language used in the [R]ule 

is not mandatory” and therefore there was no “absolute requirement or “deadline” for 

their motion. (CA 15.) Rather than simply ignoring the timeline, Appellees’ counsel 

should have requested leave to file their summary action motion out of time. But because 

Rule 27.4(b) is not mandatory or rigid, and the short delay in filing the summary action 

motion has not prevented Faggiolo from presenting his arguments to this Court or 

otherwise prejudiced him, we deny his motion to strike it.

Case: 24-2292 Document: 16 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2024
3 

9, 11.) The District Court agreed, granted their motions, and dismissed Faggiolo’s 

complaint.2

 (ECF 24.) Faggiolo filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF 25) The 

District Court denied Faggiolo’s motion, finding that he sought to “relitigate arguments 

the District Court ha[d] already considered.” (ECF 29 at 3.) This timely appeal 

followed.

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and have plenary review over 

dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 

F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). We generally have jurisdiction only when a dismissal is 

with prejudice, but a plaintiff can appeal from a dismissal without prejudice when, as 

here, “he cannot cure the defect in his complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289, 293 

n.3 (3d Cir. 2000).

III.

The Tax Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining “the assessment, 

levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy 

may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Additionally, the principle of 

comity bars taxpayers “from asserting § 1983 actions against the validity of state tax 

systems in federal courts” if the state court provides “plain, adequate, and complete” 

remedies. Fair Assessment in Real Est. Ass’n v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 116 (1981); 

2

 Although the District Court did not specify, its dismissal was without prejudice. See

Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 182 (3d Cir. 1999) (agreeing that “a 

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits and 

thus should be ordered ‘without prejudice’”).

Case: 24-2292 Document: 16 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2024
4 

Kerns v. Dukes, 153 F.3d 96, 101 (3d Cir. 1998). We have repeatedly held that 

Pennsylvania state courts provide a “plain, speedy, and efficient” remedy for challenges 

to assessments of real property taxes. See, e.g., Gass v. County of Allegheny, Pa., 371 

F.3d 134, 139 (3d Cir. 2004).

Faggiolo argues in his response to Appellees’ motion for summary action that the 

dismissal of his complaint was improper because he brought his claims as a civil rights 

complaint. (CA 13 at 6.) We find his argument meritless given the tax issues that form 

the basis of his case, the applicability of the Tax Injunction Act, the principles of comity 

discussed in McNary and Kerns, and the availability of state court remedies. We agree 

with the District Court that Faggiolo could have sought effective relief through state 

court, and that the Tax Injunction Act and the principle of comity therefore barred him 

from bringing his case in federal court. We further agree that Faggiolo’s motion for 

reconsideration did not involve an intervening change in controlling law, newly 

discovered evidence, or allegations of clear errors of law or fact. See Max’s Seafood

Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). For these 

reasons, the District Court correctly dismissed Faggiolo’s complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Faggiolo’s appeal presents no substantial question, so we grant 

Appellees’ motion and will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See

Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 27.4(a). Appellant’s motion to strike Appellees’ 

motion for summary action is denied.

Case: 24-2292 Document: 16 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/05/2024