1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11

- 1276

___________ PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR.,

Appellant

v.
F. HARRY SPIESS, JR.; MONTGOMERY COUNTY; MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURTH OUSE; STEVEN T. O'NEILL, Montgomery County Courthouse; JOE RANNAEZY, Vincent's Hardwood Flooring; LAUREN MCSORLEY; MICHAEL P. DIGNAZIO

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Penn sylvania ( E.D. Pa. D.C. Civil No. 11

- cv

- 0288 ) District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M Rufe

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 1, 2011

Before: JORDAN, GARTH and BARRY
, Circuit Judges

(Opinion f

iled : August 4, 2011 )

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM

Patrick Till i o , proceeding pro se , appeals the decision of the District Court2

dismissing his complaint with out prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In January 2011, Till i o filed a five

- page handwritten
complaint. On January 20, 2011
, the District Court
, sua sponte , dismissed Till i o’s
complaint without prejudice and closed the case statistically, because it was “rambling

and unclear ” and therefore failed to meet the pleading standards set forth in R ule 8(a)

. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This Court

reviews a district court’s dismissal of claims under Rule 8 for abuse of discretion. In re
Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 9 0 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A district court

may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failur e to comply with Rule 8, but dismissal “is
usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous,
vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”

Simmons v. Abruzzo , 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Ci r. 1995) (quotations omitted). Although the
complaint Tillio submitted was, as the District Court noted, “rambling and unclear,”
district courts generally must allow plaintiffs leave to amend deficient complaints prior to

dismissal unless doing so would b e futile

. Simmons , 49 F.3d at 87; cf. Grayson v.
Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

We conclude that t he District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Tillio’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 8. None of

his submissions to the District Court or to this Court reveal s any factual or legal basis for3

a federal claim. Although a district court should generally give leave to amend prior to
dismissing or making its own determination whether a ny amendment would be futile
,
Simmons
, 49 F.3d at 87, w e are s atisfied

— especially in light of Tillio’s unclear appellate
filings

— that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by dismiss ing hi s complaint

without leave to amend. Cf. Grayson v. Mayvie w State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d

Cir. 2002).
For the foregoing reasons, we shall affirm the judgment of the District Court.