2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-15-2014

Justin Credico v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1110

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

"Justin Credico v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 720.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/720
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1110

___________

JUSTIN MICHAEL CREDICO,

 Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

(UNDER SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT-VACCINE WAIVER FOR RABIES);

PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF HEALTH;

JOHN AND JANE DOE #1 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #2 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #3 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #4 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #5 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #6 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #7 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #8 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

JOHN AND JANE DOE #9 (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY);

ANY OTHER UNKNOWN PERSON OR PERSONS (IN THEIR

INDIVIDUAL & OFFICIAL CAPACITY) THAT WERE IN THE

PREVIOUSLY FILED RABIES CLAIM);

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF CHESTER COUNTY;

CHIEF OFFICER OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE,

(INDIVIDUAL & OFFICIAL CAPACITY)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 13-cv-03310)

District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez

____________________________________
2

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 9, 2014

Before: CHAGARES, GARTH and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 15, 2014)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Justin Credico appeals from the order of the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his second amended complaint with 

prejudice. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

This litigation began in June 2013, when Credico filed a complaint against 

numerous defendants purportedly seeking to advance, inter alia, a “rabies claim.” 

Credico’s complaint was replete with deficiencies. After permitting Credico to file an 

amended complaint on two separate occasions, the District Court dismissed his second 

amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The 

District Court afforded Credico one final opportunity to file a proper complaint. The 

court specifically instructed him to state, as “clearly and briefly” as possible, how each 

named defendant has violated his constitutional rights and what harm, if any, he suffered 

as a result of each defendant’s actions. The District Court admonished Credico to refrain 

from including any legal arguments or scientific research information. Having received 

no amended pleading from Credico, the District Court entered an order dismissing the 

action with prejudice. This appeal followed.
3

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review the District Court’s 

decision to dismiss a claim under Rule 8 for abuse of discretion. In re Westinghouse Sec. 

Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996). While mindful that we are under an obligation to 

liberally construe the submissions of a pro se litigant, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520 (1972), Credico provides no basis on appeal for concluding that the District Court 

abused its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint for failure to comply 

with Rule 8.

Initially, we note that Credico is an experienced pro se litigator. Even taking into 

account his status as a pro se litigant, we agree with the District Court that he failed to 

comply with the basic pleading requirements. His second amended complaint lacked 

“short and plain statement[s]” of any “claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Furthermore, Credico’s specific allegations were neither “‘simple, 

concise, [nor] direct.’” See Rule 8(d)(1). Moreover, despite the District Court’s previous 

admonition, Credico again set forth – among many other things – extensive legal 

arguments and an entire section on “rabies research.”

The District Court provided Credico with an opportunity to comply with Rule 8 

and gave him specific instructions as to what must be included in a proper complaint. 

Credico failed to follow the District Court’s directions. Accordingly, granting him leave 

to file a yet another amended complaint would have been futile, and the District Court did 

not abuse its discretion by dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice.1 

 

1

 Credico has attached to his Informal Brief what appears to be yet another amended 

complaint which he alleges was submitted to the District Court for filing, but apparently 
4

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

Westinghouse, 90 F.3d at 703-04. For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.

 

never received by that court. Aside from the fact that this submission is not part of the 

record on appeal and, thus, not properly before us for review, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a), it 

does nothing to show that the District Court committed an abuse of discretion. If 

anything, it does just the opposite.