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

7-15-2014 

# J u s t in C r edico v

. C ommon we alth of P e nnsy

l v a ni a
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 . 14-1110

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

" J us t in C r e d ic o v

. C ommon w e alth of P e nn s y

lv a ni a " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 720. 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 e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/7201 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 4

- 1110

___________ JUSTIN MICHAEL CREDICO , Appellant

v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, (UNDER SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT

- VACCINE WAIVER FOR RABI ES);

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 CAPA CITY); 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 DIST RICT 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. San chez

____________________________________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
A ppellant 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 d ismissed 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 br iefly ” 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 scientif ic 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
decis ion 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 s e 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 a mended c omplaint lacked “short and plain statement[s]” of any “claim showi ng 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 fo rth

– among many other things

– extensive legal arguments and an entire section on “rabies research

. ”
T he District Court provided Credico with an opportunity to comply with Rule 8 and gave him specific instructions as to what must be included i n 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 disc retion by dismissing the second a mended c omplaint 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 apparently4

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 affir m the District Court’s judgment.

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