2011 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

4-13-2011 

# S cott T r a v aline v . U S S upr e me C t

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 . 10-4591

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_2011

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 2011 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

" S c ott T r a v al ine v . U S S u pr e me C t " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1441. 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_2011/1441BLD

- 148 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10

- 4591

___________ SCOTT JOHN TRAVALINE; LUCINDA ELIZABETH TRAVALINE; SETH FRANCIS TRAVALINE

v. US SUPREME COURT, ET AL

SCOTT JOHN TRAVALINE,

Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsy lvania (D.C. Civil No. 10

- cv
- 01653 ) District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 24, 2011 Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR. , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed April 13, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM2

Scott Travaline appeals from the District Court’s o rder dismissing his second amended complaint. For the reasons that follo w, we will summaril y affirm the order of
the District Court

. The District Court initially denied without prejudice Travaline’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) because it was incomplete. 1 Travaline then filed a proper IFP
motion and an amended complaint in which he was the only named plaintiff. In his amended complaint, Travaline listed eight defendants and simply stated “Civil Rights Violations under 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 Amendments.” The District Court granted his IFP motion, but dismissed the amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because it was incomprehensible. Travaline then filed a second amended complaint 2 and attached “forms for evidence.” By or der entered November 10, 2010, t he District Court dis missed the second amended complaint

. Travaline appeals and requests appointment of counsel

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We generally exercise plenary
review over a dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim

. Allah v. Se iverling ,

1 Travaline also failed to list all defendants in the caption of the complaint. The complaint was not signed by co

- plain tiffs, Lucinda Elizabeth Travaline and Seth Francis Travaline.3

229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). However, w e review t h e district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure for an abuse of
discretion. See In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996). Travaline’s amended and second amended complaints fail to comply with basic pleading requirements. 3 Additionally, they fail to state a claim for relief , to the extent
claims can be discerned

. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requir es that a compl aint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that th e pleader is entitled to relief, ” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2) ,(3)

. Each

averment must be “s imple, concise , and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P

. 8 (d)(1).
Travaline’s amended complaint simply states “Civil Rights Violations under 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 Amendments.” His amended complaint provides no basis for the alleged
violations , as it does not state any factual allegations against the defen dan ts. Travaline
also fails to request any form of relief. The District Court thus did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8.

2 The second amended complaint named Travaline as the only plaintiff and listed the following defendants: Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Thomas Corbett; Judge Thomas Del Ricci; Flamm, Boroff, a nd Bacine; Jack Rounick; F. Emitt Fitzpatrick; Robert Rosenthal; Harc Group; Brooks, and Burns; Jay Marks; Pat Chichon; Risa Ferman; Gordon Maier; and Robin Travaline.

3 Travaline’s original complaint also failed to comply with basic pleading requirements , as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that the title of the complaint name all the parties involved and be signed by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, 11.4

Travaline’s second amended complaint contain s largely unintelligible ra mblings.
Travaline attached to the complaint two orders issue d by the Pennsylvania Superior Court regarding his divorce proceedings , along with equally unintelligible pleadings filed in

state court. T he state court ordered the sale of the marital home du ring the process of the
divorce proceedings and directed that Travaline pay his wife’s counsel fees

. 4 C onstruing
his second amended complaint liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),
we believe Travaline allege s that the state court’s or ders were the result of conspiracy , collusion, perju ry, and criminal fraud among the defendants , and that the sale of the marital property was a criminal trespass, a destruction of personal property, and a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Distric t Court, however, did not err in dismissing Trava line’s second amended complaint. Even if that complaint arguably met the requirements of Rule 8, it failed to

state a plausible claim for relief

. Although we believe we have deciphered the c laims
Travaline attempted to raise in his second amended complaint, we find , in the complaint ,

no factual basis for the claims

. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Mayer v. Belichick , 605 F.3d 223, 230 ( 3d Cir. 2010) ( factual allegations must
allow the court to reasonably infer defendant s are liable for the alleged misconduct ) ; see also Fuentes v. South Hills Cardiology , 946 F.2d 196, 201

- 02 ( 3d Cir. 1991) ( general allegation of conspiracy without a statement of the facts is insufficient to constitu te a

4 It is unclear whether the divorce has been fina lized.5

cause of action )

. Dismissal of the complaint without affording leave to amend was appropriate. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (district court must extend the plaintiff an opportunity to amend before dismissing a complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile). After reviewing the pleadings, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion or otherwise err in dismissing Travaline’s complaints. Accordingly, we will
affirm the District Court’s judgment . We also deny Travaline’s motion for appointment
of counsel. See Tabron v. Grace , 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).