2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-22-2004 

# B r un wa s se r v . J ohns P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2677

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B r un was s e r v . J o hn s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 789. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/789NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2677
ALLEN N. BRUNWASSER, individually and as a rep resentative of a c lass of law yers and lit igants who may be subjec t to PA. R.A. P. 2744 and or 3305 and or 3306; CONSTAN CE A. SCHAEF ER; JOHN C AGNON; TH E FIF TIES CL UB ; LOU IS A. L AR AIA

v. CHARLES W. JOHNS, Pro th ono taryof t he S upr eme Co urt of P enns ylvania
ALLEN N. BRUNWASSER, individually and as a rep resentative of a c lass of law yers and l itigan ts who may be subj ect to Pa. R. C.P. 2744 and/or 3305 and/or 3306, CONSTAN CE A. SCHAEF ER; JOHN C AGNON, THE FIFTIES C LUB, DO LORE S MU ICK*,

LO UIS L AR IAI, Ap pellan ts (*Pursua nt to F.R.A .P. 12(a)) App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the We stern D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Civi l No. 03-cv- 00268) Distri ct Judge: Robert J. Cindrich
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 12, 20042 Be for e: R EN DE LL , CO W EN and LA Y* , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed April 22, 2004 )

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
. Allen N. Brunwasser

appeals f

rom an order entered in t he District Court

granti ng Defendant’s motion to di smiss hi s clai m challengi ng the constitutionali ty of Rules 3305, 3306, and 2744 of the Pennsy lvania Rules of Appell ate Proce dure, which ge nerall y gr ant authority to the Prothon otary of the Penn sylvania Suprem e Cou rt and to the state’s appell ate courts t o recommend and/or i nsti tute s ancti ons agains t attorney s for vi olati ons of v arious rules, inc luding the filing of friv olou s app eals. B runw asser b roug ht suit indivi dually

and as a representat

ive of a cl ass of l awyers potenti ally affected by

the aforem entioned ru les, naming se veral of his clients as a dditional plaintiffs. Bru nwa sser’s cl ai m was di smi ss ed f

orla ck o f s ta ndi ng. We wil l a ffirm. As the District Court

noted, this is not

the fi rst t

ime that Brunwasser fi led such a lawsuit . In fac t, he file d a “nearl y i dentic al action” on Jul y 9, 2001, which was dis missed

*Honorable Donald P. Lay , Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.1 Acc or di ng to the Dis tric t C our t, “[ a] lt hou gh s ome of

th e l an gua ge us ed in th e t wo comp laints differs, M r. Brunw asser’s allegations an d legal theories are ide ntical in every materi al res pect. ” D. Ct. Order at 3. 3 with prej udice for

lack of st anding. 1 See D. Ct. Order at 2 (ci ting Brunwasser v. J ohns , No. 01- 125 5, 200 2 WL 3 277 5 ( W.D. Pa. Ja n. 10, 200 2) ). Bru nwa ss erap pe al ed , and w e sub seq uen tly aff irme d. ( Brunwasser v. J ohns , 2002 WL 31667654, *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 200 2)). Brunw asser now asks us to reverse the District Court’s most recent ruli ng because he contends t

hat: 1) certain propose d amendments to hi s complaint , which est ablis h that Bru nw asser is f earfu l abou t pursu ing v arious legal issu es be caus e doin g so m ay result in th e i mpos itio n of

sa nctio ns a gai nst

hi m, c onf

erth e s ta ndi ng n ece ss ar y to re vi ve h is cl ai m, and thus, the case should be r emanded for furt her consi derati on on the meri ts; 2) the Distri ct Court’ s order, which cauti oned Brunwasser agai nst fi ling bas eless lawsuit s in the future or else face the pro spec t of R ule 11 sanc tions, co nstitutes a “gag orde r,” wh ich in itself co nfers stand ing u pon Bru nw asser; a nd 3 ) the C ourt’s o rder, w hich in additio n to warning Brunwasser about future sancti ons also noted that his cl aim could be bar

red by res j udicat a, qual ifie s as an advi soryopinion, or, i n the al ternat ive, suggests that t

he Distri ct Court J udge was acti ng as a bias ed advocate. It is well s ettled t

hat in order to est ablish Articl e III standi ng, the plainti ff must sho w, inter alia , that he “suffe red an inj ury in fact --an i nvasion of a l egall y pr otect ed interest [t

hat] i s . . . concre te and particul arize d” and “actua l or i mminent, not conjectural2 Gag orders are generally used to prohibi t an attorneyfrom discussing a notorious case

with reporters – thei r purpose is entirely unrel ated to the impositi on of sanctions against an a ttorn ey fo r filin g fr ivo lou s law suits
. See Black’s L aw D ictionary 678 (6th ed. 1 990 ). Moreover, in order to es tabli sh standi ng in cases where actualgag orders are at issue, the plaint iff stillhas the bur den of showing that the gag orde r caused hi m injury in fact and that h is inju ry is like ly to be red ress ed b y a fav ora ble d ecis ion
. FOCU S v. Alleghe ny County Court

of Common Pleas , 75 F.3d 8 34, 838 (3 d Cir. 199 6) (citations omitted). 4 or hy potheti cal. ” AT& T Comm uns. of N.J ., I nc. v. Verizon N.J. , Inc. , 270 F.3d 162, 170 (3d Cir. 2001) (ci ting Lujan v. Defender s of Wildli fe , 504 U.S . 555 , 560 -61 (19 92) ). Furthermore, fear

of a possi ble future consequenc e that is merel y spe culative is not an inju ry in fa ct, an d th us is not suf ficie nt to con fer s tand ing
. See, e. g. , Georgine v. Amch em Prods. , 83 F .3d 6 10, 6 36 ( 3d C ir. 19 96) , aff ’d sub nom. Amchem Prods. v. Windsor , 521 U .S. 591 (199 7). In the i nstant

case, Brunwass er’s a llegations regardi ng the pote ntialimposition of sanctions against hi m is nothing more than speculative. Furthermore, hi s asserti ons (1) th at a c our t’s fo rew arn ing of p oss ible f utu re sa nctio ns is equ ivale nt to a “g ag o rde r,” 2 (2) that thedelive ry of such a warning makes a judge i nto a bia sed advocat e, and (3) that a court vi olate s the rule agai nst i ssuing an a dvisory opinion when it

merelynotes t

hat ther e are oth er b ase s on wh ich it s ruli ng c oul d be sup por ted, a re w hol ly lack ing in m erit. Fo r the for ego ing reas ons , we find Bru nw asse r’s co nten tion s w itho ut m erit. Acco rd in gl y , we wil l s ummaril y AFFI RM.