2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-9-2009

Steven Fleming v. Lackawanna Cty Courthouse

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2957

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

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 2009 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

"Steven Fleming v. Lackawanna Cty Courthouse" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 462.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/462
BLD-325 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2957

___________

STEVEN PAUL FLEMING,

Appellant

v.

LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURTHOUSE; LACKAWANNA COUNTY

GOVERNMENT; SENIOR JUDGE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00682)

District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 24, 2009

Before: MCKEE, FISHER AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed October 9, 2009 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Steven Paul Fleming, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s

dismissal of his amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the
2

appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Fleming filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania on April 14, 2009. The District Court construed it as seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and issued an order explaining the defects in Fleming’s

complaint, setting out the information required to state a claim under § 1983, and ordering

Fleming to amend his complaint to comply with those requirements. Fleming filed an

amended complaint, the substance of which is described in great detail in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report & Recommendation. The amended complaint named Lackawanna

County Courthouse and Lackawanna County as the defendants. As the Magistrate Judge

explained, Fleming failed to specify any conduct, wrongful or otherwise, of any properly

named defendant. A fair reading of Fleming’s complaint does not indicate what specific

wrongs he seeks to remedy or who committed them. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge

recommended that Fleming not be permitted to amend his complaint for a second time, as

it appeared that any such amendment would be futile. By order entered June 9, 2009, the

District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation and dismissed

the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because

Appellant has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, we

review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An

appeal must be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in fact or law. 
3

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). For all of the reasons given by the

Magistrate Judge, we agree that Fleming failed to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted and, accordingly, conclude that this appeal must be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).