DLD-291 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3073

___________

PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR.,

Appellant

v.

H&R BLOCK, INC.; IRS OFFICE; 1040 TAXES, H&R Block;

JAMS WALST; FRAK KANE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 11-4452)

District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

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

September 15, 2011

Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 22, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Patrick Tillio appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his 

complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the 
2

District Court’s order for abuse of discretion. See Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 

188, 192-93 (3d Cir. 2007); In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 

1996). For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.

In July 2011, Tillio filed a complaint on the form provided by the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint, however, is 

largely incomprehensible. For instance, in the space provided for the plaintiff to explain 

“what happened to you,” Tillio wrote only, “on TV NBC CH10 HR Block FRAUD 

people and did my 1040 IRS taxes this.”

On July 15, 2011, the District Court, sua sponte, dismissed Tillio’s complaint 

without prejudice and closed the case statistically, concluding that the complaint was 

“rambling and unclear” and therefore failed to meet the pleading standards set forth in 

Rule 8(a). Tillio then filed a timely notice of appeal.

We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

Tillio’s 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 – Tillio’s 

complaint fails to reveal any factual or legal basis for a federal claim. Although district 
3

courts generally must allow plaintiffs leave to amend deficient complaints prior to 

dismissal, id. at 87, we are satisfied that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by 

dismissing Tillio’s complaint without providing leave to amend. Cf. Grayson v. 

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (explaining that district courts 

may dismiss complaints without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. 

L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.