2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-11-2014

Charles Muhammad v. United States Board of

Governo

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1507

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Charles Muhammad v. United States Board of Governo" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 950.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/950
DLD-349 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1507

___________

CHARLES MUHAMMAD,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES BOARD OF GOVERNORS POSTAL SYSTEM

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 2:14-cv-00200)

District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

____________________________________

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

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 28, 2014

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 11, 2014)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

On January 6, 2014, Charles Muhammad, of Newark, New Jersey, filed a pro se 

complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the 

United States Board of Governors Postal System as defendant. The District Court 
2

granted Muhammad leave to proceed in forma pauperis but immediately dismissed his 

complaint without leave to amend, citing its failure to state a federal claim as well as its 

failure to conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 

Muhammad timely filed this appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. To the extent the District 

Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), or under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order. See Allah v. 

Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). To the extent the District Court dismissed 

the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), we review the District Court’s order for abuse 

of discretion. See In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996).

Upon review, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing the 

complaint. Rule 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 failure to comply with Rule 8; dismissal is appropriate in cases 

where 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 

Cir. 1995). We agree with the District Court that this is such a case. Muhammad’s 

complaint fails to reveal any factual or legal basis for a federal claim; thus, dismissal was 

appropriate. However, to the extent the complaint attempts to raise claims regarding 

events which occurred in New York, we construe the District Court’s dismissal to be 
3

without prejudice to Muhammad’s filing a properly pled complaint in the appropriate 

court.1

For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented and we will affirm 

the judgment of the District Court. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4: I.O.P. 10.6. The District Court’s 

order did not specify whether its dismissal was with or without prejudice. Although we 

will affirm, we modify the dismissal of Muhammad’s complaint to be without prejudice 

to his filing a properly pled complaint in the appropriate court.

 1 Muhammad’s arguments on appeal, as well as documents that he filed in the District 

Court after he filed his appeal, suggest that he is attempting to sue the defendant, at 

least in part, for events that took place at a Manhattanvile, New York post office 

branch. To that extent, it does not appear that the District of New Jersey was the proper 

venue for those claims. Rather, venue may lie in the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of New York.