2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-6-2007 

# O ' D ell v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3325

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " O ' D ell v . U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 124. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1241

A L D - 47 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 3325

___________ DA NN Y TH OM AS O ’ DELL, A ppel l ant v. UNI TE D ST ATE S GOV ERNM ENT ; P HI LI P J . BER G

__________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 1094) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or S u m m ary A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

N ovember8, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FI SH E R and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber6, 2007)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM D annyT hom as O ’ D el l , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s cas e as2

f ri v o lo u s . W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 ). O n M ar ch 1, 2007, O ’ D el l fi l ed a mot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d befor e the di s tr i ct courti n form a paupe r i s . H e then fi l ed document s ent i t l ed “A ddendum, ” “N ot i fi cat i on of A ppeal , ” and “ A ddendum t o A ppeal , ” w hi ch s t at ed i n the capt i ons thathe w as

“ a p p e a l[ in g ] f

ro m 2 :0 3 c v – 0 5 2 7 3 -e r.” M a ria n i v . U .S .A ., th e c a se th a t O ’D e ll atte m p ts to appea l fr om ( al though t her e i s no i ndi cat i on thathe w as i nvol ved w i th thatcas e i n any capa ci ty ) , conce r ned cl ai m s thatthe U ni t ed St at es governm entperm i t t ed the att acks of Sept ember11, 2001, and thus caus ed the dea th of the M ar i ani pl ai nt i ff’ s hus band. ( See E . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 03- cv- 05273. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed M ar i ani on A pr i l 16, 2004 underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 41( a) . I n thi s cas e, O ’ D el l m akes al l egat i ons r egar di ng the Sept ember11, 2001 att acks s i m i l art o thos e i n M ar i ani

— i . e. , thatthe att acks r es ul t ed fr om a cons pi r acybetw een the U ni t ed St at es governm entand numer ous in d iv id u a ls a n d c o rp o ra tio n s . O ’D ell fil ed a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l t o this C o u rtaf ter th e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed hi s cas e as fr i vol ous i n an or derent er ed on J ul y23, 2007. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons . C r adl e v. U . S. ex r el . M i ner , 290 F. 3d 536, 538 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . H avi ng g ra n ted O ’D e ll l e a v e to p ro c e e d in f o r ma p a u p e ris, w e m u st n o w d e ter m in e w h e th e r h is appea l s houl d be di s m i s s ed as l acki ng an ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac tpur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 . 

### Neitzke v. W il li am s, 49 0 U .S. 319 , 325 (198 9).T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd ism iss e d O ’D e ll’s c a se , as th e re is n o leg a l m e rit to

hi s caus e of a ct i on. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned, O ’ D el l appea r ed t o be att empt i ng to a p p e a l th e M a ria n i ca se to th e sa m e d istric t co u rt th a t o rig in a llyd ism iss e d it. T h is is obvi ous l yi m pr oper . A nd even i f O ’ D el l had s t andi ng t o appea l fr om the M ar i ani deci s i on ( w hi ch he l i kel ydoes not ) , hi s appea l w oul d be unt i m el y , and an appeal i n that c a s e w a s a lr e a d yf

ile d a n d s u b s e q u e n tly d is m is s e d b yth is C o u rt . S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 . F u rth e rm o re , if O ’D e ll i s a ttem p tin g to b rin g a n e w c a u se o f a c tio n u n re late d to M a ria n i, h is a lleg a tio n s— w h ich ru n th e g a m u t f ro m p o lit ica l an d c o rp o ra te c o n sp ira c yto C o m p U S A ’s $ 4 . 9 9 serv ice p lan c h arg e— fa il to state an yco g n izab le claim s an d are “pat ent l ym er i t l es s and bey ond al l hope of r edempt i on. ” See Chut e v. W al ker , 281 F. 3d 314, 319 ( 1s tC i r . 2002) ( s ua s pont e di s m i s s al i s appr opr i at e w her e i ti s cl earthatthe pl ai nt i ff c annotpr evai l and thatanyamendm entt o the compl ai ntw oul d be fut i l e) . See al s o G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew St at e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( not i ng that di s m i s s al of ca s e w i thoutl eave t o amend i s pr operw hen amendm entw oul d be fut i l e or ineq u it ab le). A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d is m is s O ’D e ll’ s a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ). W e d e n ya s m o o t O ’D e ll’s re q u e st to a d d p a rties to th e a p p e a l an d to a m e n d th e c a p tio n .