NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 22-1164

__________

LINDA ANN WRIGHT, 

Appellant 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF TEXAS; 

THE U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE PENNSYLVANIA; ALEX KOZINSKI; NEAL 

KATYAL; BARBARA BOXER; BONNIE S. GRAHAM; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS; SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL; ARNOLD RUSSO; U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; PATRICK ORY; ANDREW 

SAUL; KILOLO KIJAKAZI; TOM WHEELER; ROBERT GATES; DANIEL 

DEWSNUP; ERIC SHINSEKI; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; DAVID SPIVEY; RICHARD 

P. GEIB; ERIC HOLDER; KARLA KERLIKOWSKE; JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO; 

SAN FRANCISCO VA MEDICAL CENTER; COLEEN L. WELCH; KENNETH 

SWASEY; TELLA WILLIAMS; ULRIKE WILLIMON; MARIA RAINWATER; 

JENNIFER VANDERMOLEN; DONALD E. KOENIG; PA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S 

OFFICE; CARRIE E. WILSON; SAINT CLAIR HOSPITAL, ET AL; THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA; OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CA; JEFFREY R, VINCENT; 

XAVIER BECERRA; EDMUND BROWN, JR.; KAMALA HARRIS; BETTY T. YEE; 

CA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; MARTINEZ VA HOSPITAL; ELIZABETH 

MARTINEZ MAHAN; MAE FRANCINE HOLMES; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF INSURANCE; MEDICAID OF CALIFORNIA; MEDICAL BOARD OF 

CALIFORNIA; KAREN L. SMITH; KRISTINA D. LAWSON; OAKLAND VA 

REGIONAL OFFICE; SUPERIOR COURT OF COURT HUMBOLDT; JOHN L. 

BURRIS; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY; KEN PIMLOTT; 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VEHICLES; JEAN SHIOMOTO; MEDTRONIC 

SPRINT FIDELIS; LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NUEN; DAVID S. WEILAND; EAST 

BAY CARDIOLOGY;PROTRANSPORT1; KINDRED MEDICAL HILL 

REHABILITATION; KINDRED REHABILITATION SAN LEANDRO; HARNETT 

CHOPRA;MAE FRANCINE HOLMES; VALE REHABILITATION; SHEILA 

CULLEN; DOCTORS HOSPITAL; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CORONER; 

WILLIAM WALKER; RONALD M. SATO; OTIS ROUNDS; WILLIAM W. CHEN; 

ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER; CASA ADOBE SENIOR 

APARTMENTS; MARIA FUENTES; UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY; U.S. POST 

OFFICE-EUREKA; U.S. POST OFFICE-SAN PABLO; TEXAS ATTORNEY 
2

GENERA OFFICE; SCOT M. GRAYDON; KEN PAXTON; GREG ABBOTT; RICK 

PERRY; ERIN NEALY COX; TALETA TOWNSEND; ALLEGIANCE BEHAVIORAL 

HEALTH; CITY OF AMARILLO; CITY OF AMARILLO; AMARILLO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; AMARILLO BUILDING DEPARTMENT; BRYAN SCOTT 

MCWILLIAMS; GWEN GONZALES; KIRKLAND COURT REHABILITATION; 

JOYCE COURSE; JACQUELINE S. COOPER; JOHN DZIK; KEVIN WRIGHT; 

GORDON K. WRIGHT; YOLANDA CALDWELL; TIMOTHY M. DORTCH; 

KIRKLAND COURT NURSING STAFF 2013-PRESENT; MICHAEL KAITCER; 

NORTHWEST TEXAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; MITZI S. MAYFIELD; KEVIN 

WRIGHT; BSA REHABILITATION; THOMAS E. CREEK MEDICAL CENTER; 

RODNEY GONZALEZ; CHAD LOGAN; LEONARD & LYDE; REDWOOD FAMILY 

PRACTICE; MARIA WINTERS; AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE; 

JOSEPH J. MINIOZA; SAMANTHA POWERS; ANDREW P. SCLAR; NATHANIEL

LUCEY; ERIKSEN ARBUTHNOT; AMERICAN EXPRESS CORPORATION; THE 

MOORE GROUP; HARVEY MOORE; RAMIN MAHAVI; BOIES SCHILLER & 

FLEXNOR; EDMOND GARABEDIAN; SONYA DEVORAH PASKIL; PALMER 

LOMBARDI & DONOHUE; ROBERT L. BACHMAN; CHETNA VORA; BRETT 

DAVID WATSON; DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; THE ARBORS 

REHABILITATION; JOSEPH MARK PARSONS; NANCY K. DELANEY; KEVIN 

WRIGHT; MOBILITY SOLUTIONS AMARILLO; J. SELMAN; JEFF GEARHART; 

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; WELLS FARGO USA; STEVEN L. HOARD; 

KEVIN WRIGHT; TYRONE WRIGHT; MARGARET MARIE SCHNECK; LARRY 

"DOE"; JOHNATHAN HINDERS HINDERS; WELLS FARGO BANK-AMARILLO; 

EQUIFAX CORPORATION; RICHARD SMITH, CEO; MEPCO FINANCIAL; JAIME 

PAUL DREHER; KELLY LUIS POPE; AT&T CORPORATION; JOHN STANKEY; 

RANDALL STEPHENSON; AT&T EUREKA-CA; COAST CENTRAL CREDIT 

UNION; LARRY DERIDDER; AMELIA FAIRBANKS BURROUGHS; NANCY 

CRAIG; BRIAN OGDEN CRAIG; KIM S. ERIVN; THE EUREKA VETERANS 

CLINIC; PATRICIA FITZGERALD; PETRA KUHFAHL; MICHAEL MORRISON; 

THOMAS J. RYDZ; KUSUM STOKES; JANSSEN MALLOY; NEEDHAM 

MORRISON; CROWLEY & GRIEGO REINHOLTSEN; MITCHELL BRISSO 

DELANEY & VRIEZE; NANCY K. DELANEY; JOHN VRIEZE; CLERK OF BOARD 

OF SUPERVISORS; HUMBOLDT COUNTY ASSESSOR; HUMBOLDT COUNTY 

BUILDING PERMITS; HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFFS; JOHN 

BARTHOMOLEW; SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL; SAINT JOSEPH 

REHABILITATION; THE ARBORS REHABILITATION-TEXAS; HUMBOLDT 

COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT; JILL DUFFY; MECHANICS BANK; PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION; WILLIAM D, JOHNSON CEO; JP MORGAN 

CHASE; ALTICE COMMUNICATIONS; DEXTER GOEI, CEO; SUDDENLINK 

COMMUNICATIONS-EUREKA CA; S. LEE MERRITT; RAY SCHNIBBEN; 

GIORGIO HERRERA; SUTTER DELTA HEALTHCARE; IRINA KOLOMEY; LONE 

TREE CONVALESCENT, ET AL; ALLSTATE INSURANCE CORPORATION; 

THOMAS WILSON, CEO; TIM STOREY-EUREKA CA; THE ARBORS 
3

REHABILITATION; JOSEPH MARK PARSONS; CHARLES EDWARD MOSS; NW 

TEXAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, MITZI S. MAYFIELD; MICHAEL H. LOFTIN; 

KEVIN WRIGHT; THOMAS E. CREEK VA MEDICAL CENTER; RODNEY 

GONZALEZ; CHAD LOGAN; MOBILITY SOLUTIONS AMARILLO; DUSTY J. 

STOCKARD; J. SELMAN; SHARON B. DRAGER; IRINA KOLOMEY; ST. CLAIR 

HOSPITAL

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-01152)

District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 7, 2022

Before: MCKEE†

, SHWARTZ, and MATEY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 14, 2023)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Linda Ann Wright appeals from the District Court’s order 

dismissing her lawsuit with prejudice after screening it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

Wright filed this action in August 2021 against the United States, the States of 

California and Texas, certain federal agencies and officials, and a multitude of other 

†

Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022.

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

constitute binding precedent.
4

public officials and private individuals, seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages and 

other relief. Wright’s complaint and amended complaints catalogued a vast inventory of 

grievances, many unrelated to each other, from events during her and her deceased 

parents’ lives. Much of her case echoed prior litigation she pursued against many of the 

same defendants in California and Texas.‡

 She claimed jurisdiction in the Western 

District of Pennsylvania under diversity of citizenship and federal question jurisdiction 

for alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution; 18 U.S.C. §§ 153, 241, 242, 371, 1503, 1951; and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2),(3). 

See ECF Dkt. No. 17 at 3. 

In December 2021, the District Court granted her motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Before defendants were served with her most recent amended complaint, the 

District Court screened the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires 

dismissal of an in forma pauperis action that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted,” “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune,” or is frivolous. Id. 

The District Court considered Wright’s latest complaint in the case under those criteria 

and concluded that “dismissal with prejudice [was] appropriate, as Ms. Wright’s claims 

suffer[ed] from a range of fatal deficiencies,” the most obvious being that the complaint 

‡ See Wright v. United States, No. 3:14-cv-3008, 2015 WL 3902798, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Jun. 24, 2015); Wright v. United States, No. 2:15-cv-0214, 2016 WL 1070838, at *1 

(N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2016). She recently sought, unsuccessfully, to reopen those cases. 

She has also filed Supreme Court actions which, she admits, concern some of the same 

grievances. In 2021, Wright filed another lawsuit in the Western District of 

Pennsylvania, but it was essentially identical to this one and she agreed to close it. See

No. 2:21-cv-713.
5

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. D. Ct. Mem. Ord. at 2. The 

District Court identified other obstacles, including that it lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction over Veterans Affairs (VA) benefit claims, that she could not bring civil 

claims to enforce the criminal code, and that res judicata and the applicable statute of 

limitations barred her claims. Id. at 2-4. Wright filed this timely appeal.§

 

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

plenary review over the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e). See Dooley 

v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). In order to avoid dismissal, a complaint 

must meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and 

“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021) (cleaned 

up).** We review a court’s dismissal with prejudice for an abuse of discretion. See

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

We discern no error in the District Court’s dismissal of Wright’s complaint. First, 

we agree that, despite Wright’s many efforts, the second amended complaint (ECF Dkt. 

No. 17 plus attachments, and what are essentially duplicate filings at Nos. 23 and 24) 

§ To the extent that Wright includes new allegations in her appellate filings, we will not 

address them here because they are not properly before us. See Simko v. U.S. Steel 

Corp., 992 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2021).

** Under Rule 8, an allegation must plain enough “to give the adverse party fair notice of 

the claim asserted so as to enable him to answer and prepare for trial,” and it cannot place 

“an unjustified burden on the court and the part[ies] who must respond to it because they 

are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.” Salahuddin v. 

Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).
6

does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, even affording it the most 

generous construction, see Dooley, 957 F.3d at 374. As the District Court noted, the 

second amended complaint lacks factual allegations with respect to many named 

defendants. D. Ct. Mem. Ord. at 2. The balance of defendants has been left to guess the 

specific factual nature and the legal basis of her claims against them, such that they are 

unable to properly answer or prepare for trial. See Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42. 

Generally, Wright alleges that she has been the victim of botched medical treatments 

going back decades, that she and her deceased parents were denied medical and 

appropriate respite care, that the Department of Veterans Affairs denied benefits owed to 

her, and that various entities wrongfully took possession of her property. See ECF Dkt. 

Nos. 17 at 4, 17-3 at 1-12. But to proceed, her complaint must do more than broadly 

describe interactions with a disparate group of entities over a twenty-plus year period 

without identifying actions by specific defendants that support a facially plausible claim 

for legal relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). At a minimum, she has 

not alleged facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004), for the proposition 

that the complaint must provide more than facts that “merely create[] a suspicion of a 

legally cognizable right of action”). 

We further note that Wright’s named causes of action are largely not viable as 

presented in her complaint. Wright’s attempts to raise civil claims to enforce sections 

153, 241, 242, 371, 1503, and 1951 of the Federal Criminal Code fail because the statutes 
7

she cited do not create a private cause of action. See Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 

85-86 (1981) (explaining that a private party has no right to compel the enforcement of 

criminal laws). Wright’s claims seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and alleging 

tortious action must comply with the applicable state statute of limitations for personal 

injury claims; the claims alleged in Pennsylvania before August 30, 2018, are barred 

under the two-year statute for personal injury claims. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524; 

Bougher v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1989); Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 

F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014) (complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim 

on statute of limitations grounds when that defense is apparent on the face of the 

complaint).†† 

Finally, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wright’s 

action with prejudice because we agree that it would be futile to allow her to file yet 

another amended complaint. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 

Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007) (noting that a district court must offer amendment 

when dismissing for failure to state a claim “unless doing so would be inequitable or 

†† As the District Court decided, Wright’s lawsuit faced a variety of other problems, too. 

For example, a substantial part of Wright’s allegations is barred under res judicata 

principles in light of her prior litigation in federal courts in California and Texas, see D. 

Ct. Mem. Ord. at 2. On appeal, she tacitly conceded this point because she did not deny 

repeating those claims in this lawsuit but instead argued that the prior cases were not 

litigated before fair tribunals. See Notice of Appeal at 10; Appellant’s Informal Brief 

(C.A. Dkt. No. 15) at 9. Also, insofar as her action concerned disputes over VA benefits, 

the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see ECF Dkt. No. 17-3 at 6-7. See

38 U.S.C. § 511. Of course, Wright also cannot overcome the substantial bar to her 

claims that the sovereign immunity doctrine presents in light of the many federal and 

state defendants named in her action. See D.J.S.-W by Stewart v. United States, 962 F.3d 

745, 749 (3d Cir. 2020); Kimmel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 72-73 (2000). 
8

futile”). Wright has been afforded ample opportunities to make her case. After at least 

three attempts, her complaint still suffers from multiple flaws which are fatal to her 

lawsuit. 

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Wright’s 

outstanding motions are denied.