2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-13-2011

Scott Travaline v. US Supreme Ct

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4591

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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

"Scott Travaline v. US Supreme Ct" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1441.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1441
BLD-148 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Pennsylvania

(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 CURIAM
2

Scott Travaline appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his second 

amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily 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.1Travaline 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 complaint2and attached “forms for evidence.” By order entered 

November 10, 2010, the District Court dismissed 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. Seiverling, 

 

1

Travaline also failed to list all defendants in the caption of the complaint. The 

complaint was not signed by co-plaintiffs, Lucinda Elizabeth Travaline and Seth Francis 

Travaline. 
3

229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). However, we review the 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 requires that a 

complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief,” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),(3). Each 

averment must be “simple, 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 defendants. 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, and 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 contains largely unintelligible ramblings. 

Travaline attached to the complaint two orders issued by the Pennsylvania Superior Court

regarding his divorce proceedings, along with equally unintelligible pleadings filed in 

state court. The state court ordered the sale of the marital home during the process of the 

divorce proceedings and directed that Travaline pay his wife’s counsel fees.

4

 Construing 

his second amended complaint liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), 

we believe Travaline alleges that the state court’s orders were the result of conspiracy, 

collusion, perjury, 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 District Court, however, did not err in dismissing Travaline’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 claims

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 defendants 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 constitute a 

 

4

It is unclear whether the divorce has been finalized.
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).