2007 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 5-24-2007 

# At ami an v . B urns P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4372

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " At ami an v . B urn s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1068. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/10681

B L D - 205 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 

### 06- 4372

________________ 

### MD GA BRI ELG. AT AM I AN , Appe l l ant

v s. CH RI ST OP HE R D . BU RN S

____________________________________ O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt

F o r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00196) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

_____________________________________ S u b m itted F o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 26, 2007 B efore: M cK ee, F uen t es and W ei s, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay24, 2007 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM

A ppel l ant , G abr i el A t ami an, appea l s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng h is pro se c ivil ri g h ts co m p lai n t. U p o n co n side rati o n o f th e re co rd a n d A tam ian’s s ubm i s s i on t o t hi s C our t , w e conc l ude thatthe appe al pr es ent s no ar guabl e i s s ues of fa ct2

o r l aw . T h u s, w e w il l dism iss i t pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).

I n M a r c h 2 0 0 6 , At a mi a n f i l e d th e u n d e r l y i n g c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o T i t l e VI of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, al l egi ng thatdefe ndantC hr i s t opherB urns , D D S, r efus ed t o rende r s pecial i zed d ental care t o h i m on accou nt of hi s nat i on al i t yand his st atus as a s eni orci t i zen. A t ami an al s o as s er t ed numer ous s uppl ement al s t at e l aw cl ai m s . H e s ought com pen sat orydam ages i n the am ou nt of $2 50 , 00 0, as w el l as pun i t i ve d am ages.

A ta m ia n w a s g ra n te d le a v e to p ro c e e d w ith h is c o m p la in t in f o rm a p a u p e ri s . I n a M emora ndum O r deri s s ued on M ay24, 2006, the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he f e d e ra l cla im s A tam ian a ss e rte d a g a in st D r. B u rn s w e re su b jec t to d ism iss a l p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) , gi ven A t ami an’ s fai l ur e t o al l ege i n hi s pl eadi ngs thathe w as deni ed bene fi t s ors ubj ectt o di s cr i m i nat i on underanypr ogr am or a ct i vi t yr ece i vi ng f e d e ra l f in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e a s re q u ir e d b yth e C iv il R ig h ts A c t. S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 d . T o t he ext entA t ami an s oughtt o pur s ue a c l ai m underthe A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on A ct , the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thathi s pl eadi ngs s uffe r ed fr om the s ame fat al defi ci ency . See 42 U .S .C . § 6 1 0 2 . F in a lly , ins o f a r a s A tam ian m a yh a v e b e e n a ttem p tin g to ra ise a c laim undert he A m er i cans w i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 12101 ets eq. , the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A tam ian f a iled to a lleg e th a t h e is a d isa b led p e rso n w ith in the m ea n ing o f th e A D A . A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that A tam ian’s claim s p rese n ted n o arg u ab le ba sis i n law o r fa ct, an d that d ism issal un d er § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) w as appr opr i at e. T he courtfur t herdecl i ned t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on over3

h is s u p p le m e n ta l s ta te la w c la im s . S e e D e A s e n c io v . T y s o n F o o d s , In c ., 3 4 2 F .3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

A t ami an fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on s eeki ng t o have the D i s t r i ctC our tr econs i der i t s or derof di s m i s s al . T he pr i m aryar gum entadvanc ed byA t ami an i n s uppor tof re c o n sid e ra tio n w a s h is c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in u til izin g § 1 9 1 5 (e ) to d ism iss th e c o m p lai n t give n the f ac t th at A tam ian is n o t a prison er. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ie d A ta m ia n ’s re c o n s id e ra tio n m o tio n in a n o rd e r e n te re d o n S e p te m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e c o u rt sta ted th a t th e sc re e n in g p ro c e d u re s s e t f o rth in 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e ) a p p lyto in form a pau peri s com plai nts fi l ed b ypri soners and n on -pr i soners al i ke an d, thu s, r econs i der at i on w as notw arr ant ed. T he courtfur t hernot ed thatA t ami an’ s m ot i on fai l ed t o s etfor t h anyi nt erveni ng chanc e i n contr ol l i ng l aw ornew evi dence thatw as not avai l abl e w hen the di s m i s s al or derw as ent er ed, and thatr econs i der at i on w as notneede d to co rrect a c lear erro r of law o r fa ct or to p rev en t a m an ifest i n justi ce . S ee M ax ’s S ea fo o d C af

é v . Q u interos, 17 6 F . 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).

### “G e ne rally , an orde r whi c h di smis se s a c om pl a int w ithout 1 

### pre ju di c eis ne ithe r f

in a l n or a ppe a la bl ebe c auseth ede fi c ienc ym aybe c orr e c te d by

th epl a inti ff

w ithout a ff e c ti ng thec auseof

a c ti on. O nl yif

th e pl a inti ff c annot am e nd o r d e c lare s hi s i nt e nt io n t o st and o n hi s c om pl a int doe s theor de r b e c om efi na l a nd a ppe a la bl e . ”B ore ll i v . C ityof

Re a di ng, 532 F. 2d 9 50, 951 -52 (3 d C ir . 1976 ). Inth ein st antc a se , th eD is tric t C ourt sp ecificall y determin ed th at any am endm entto th e complaint wo ul d b e futil e. See Grayso n v . Mayview S tate Ho sp ital , 29 3 F .3d10 3, 1 08 (3 d Ci r. 2 00 2) . Thus, w e havea

ppellatejurisdicti on ov er the a ppea l. 4 A t ami an t i m el yfi l ed thi s appea l . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . H av ing rev iew ed the re co rd a n d A tam ian’s su b m issi o n to this C o u rt 1 w h ere in h e a rgu es a g ains t sum m aryd ispo sit ion , w e m u st ag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt t hatt he fe der al cl ai m s A t ami an as s er t ed aga i ns tD r . B urns w er e s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . A s the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned, A t ami an fa i l ed t o al l ege thathe w as deni ed bene fi t s orw as s ubj ectt o di s cr i m i nat i on underanypr ogr am or a ct i vi t yr ece i vi ng fede r al fi nanci al as s i s t ance as r equi r ed bythe C i vi l R i ght s and A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on A ct s , s ee 42 U . S. C . §§ 2000d and 6102, and he l i kew i s e fa i l ed t o al l ege thathe i s a di s abl ed per s on w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A D A . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 1 e t se q . W e f u rth e r c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n deny i ng A t ami an’ s r econs i der at i on m ot i on, s ee M ax’ s Seafood Café v. Q u in ter o s, 1 7 6 F .3 d a t 6 7 3 , as th e p ro v isio n s o f § 1 9 1 5 (e ) a p p lyto a ll i n f o rm a p a u p e ris c o m p lain ts, n o t sim p lyth o se f iled b yp riso n e rs. S e e , e.g ., G ra y so n v . M a yv iew S tate H o sp ., 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 4 n . 1 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 )(n o n -p riso n e r in d ig e n t p lain tiff s a re “ c lea rly5

w ith in the sco p e o f § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)” ). S ee also L o p ez v . S m ith , 2 0 3 F . 3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 9 (9 th C i r . 2000) ( § 1915( e) appl i es t o al l i n form a paupe r i s compl ai nt s , notj us tthos e fi l ed by pr i s oner s ) . W e have cons i der ed the otherar gum ent s advanc ed byA t ami an and r ej ect t hem w i t houtfur t herdi s cus s i on.

G i ven the for egoi ng, w e w i l l di s m i s s the i ns t antappea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) , as i ti s l acki ng i n l egal m er i t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319 (19 8 9 ).