2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-11-2014 

# C h a r les M uh a mm a d v . U nit ed S t a t es B o a r d of Go ve r no

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 ock e t N o . 14-1507

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t 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 v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C h a rle s M

uh a mm a d v

. U nit e d S t a t e s Bo a r d of Go v e r no " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 950. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_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- 349 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT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 Jan uary 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 Court2 

### 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
Cour t 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 o rder. 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 di strict 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.” Si mmons 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 be3 

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

court. 1 

### For the foregoing reasons, no subst antial 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 h e 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 ma y lie in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.