ALD-144 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-1414

___________

JUSTIN JUAN DE LA CRUZ MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

NED NAKLES

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00823)

District Judge: Honorable Robert J. Colville

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 27, 2024

Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 12, 2024)

_________

OPINION*

_________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

PER CURIAM

Following his arrest for trespassing on property belonging to the Derry Area 

School District, Justin Martinez sued Ned Nakles, an attorney whom he calls a “liaison” 

for the School District, ECF No. 12 at 1, in state court. After removing the action to the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Nakles filed a 

motion for a more definite statement. In granting that motion, a Magistrate Judge 

provided Martinez detailed instructions about how to structure, and what to include in, 

his amended complaint. 

In his amended complaint, Martinez alleged that Nakles violated his civil rights 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by conspiring against him. He explained that, in September 

2019, Nakles sent him a letter about a protest that he had proposed and, during a 

telephone conversation about the matter, advised him that he could stand outside, but not 

go onto, school property to protest. ECF No. 12 at 3-4. Then, in November 2019, Nakles 

was mentioned by the Police Chief on the day that Martinez was arrested for trespassing. 

Id. at 4. And, in August 2022, Nakles testified against him at trial for trespassing and 

disorderly conduct and lied about who called whom to discuss the letter and about his 

advice regarding where Martinez could and could not protest. Id. at 6-7. Martinez 

asserted that Nakles’ involvement led to a newspaper article being written about him, a 

sentence of house arrest, his “having to retire from Street protesting,” “Mental anguish,” 

and court-ordered mental-health evaluations and treatment. Id. at 5-6. He sought 
3

hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages. Id. at 8. Nakles filed a motion to dismiss 

the amended complaint, which the District Court granted. Martinez appeals.1 

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

the District Court’s order of dismissal. See St. Luke’s Health Network, Inc. v. Lancaster 

Gen. Hosp., 967 F.3d 295, 299 (3d Cir. 2020). Upon review, we will summarily affirm 

the District Court’s ruling because no substantial issue is presented on appeal. See 3d 

Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

We agree with the District Court that Martinez failed to state a claim. To state a 

conspiracy claim, “a plaintiff must assert facts from which a conspiratorial agreement can

be inferred.” Great W. Mining & Min. Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 178 

(3d Cir. 2010). Martinez frequently made the conclusory assertion that Nakles engaged 

in a conspiracy, but, as the District Court concluded, Martinez did not allege facts that 

“plausibly suggest a meeting of the minds, an agreement, or concerted activity by coconspirators.” 2

 ECF No. 18 at 9. Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed the 

complaint.3 See D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Tech. Sch., 972 F.2d 

1 He also presents a motion to transfer this case to Illinois.

2 Furthermore, to the extent that Martinez’s complaint can be construed as an effort to 

win damages from Nakles because of his allegedly false testimony during Martinez’s 

prosecution, a witness in a criminal case is immune from civil liability based on his 

testimony. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 326 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Hepting, 844 F.2d 138, 140-43 (3d Cir. 1988); Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 836-37 

(3d Cir. 1976).

3 Because we will affirm the District Court’s judgment on this basis, we do not consider 

the District Court’s application of the statute of limitations, which was an alternative 
4

1364, 1377 (3d Cir. 1992) (en banc) (affirming a dismissal of a conspiracy claim under 

42 U.S.C. § 1985 because of a failure “to assert any facts from which any type of 

conspiratorial agreement . . . can be inferred”); see also Abbott v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d 141, 

148 (3d Cir. 1998) (describing as insufficient a complaint that “contains conclusory 

allegations of concerted action but is devoid of facts actually reflecting joint action”). 

Lastly, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in ruling 

that further amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 

103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). 

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.4 Martinez’s 

motion to transfer this case is denied. 

basis for dismissal, or Martinez’s arguments about it. 

4 We reject Martinez’s claims of District Judge “bias, prejudice,” see, e.g., 3d Cir. Doc. 

No. 14 at 3, as unsupported by the record.