BLD-015 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3384

___________

FREDERICK ROLLE,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAVID G. LARIMER; MARION W. PAYSON; 

KOREY BROWN; ROB A. PONTE; WILLIAM BOOKER; HILLARY RODHAM 

CLINTON; LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER; GEORGE E. PATAKI; ROBERT J. 

DUFFY; RANDY A. DANIELS; ALAN G. HERES; CHARLES E. SHUMER; 

EVERADO A. RODRIGUEZ; GEORGE W. BUSH; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; HARRELL 

WATTS; J.L. NORWOOD; WILLIAM A. SEISM; ERIC H. HOLDER; HENRY J. 

SADOWSKI; MARK D. HOSKEN; K.M. WHITE; BARACK OBAMA; JERRY 

MARTINEZ; ALBERTO GONZALES; ARLEN SPECTOR; ROBERT CASEY, JR.; 

ED NETZBAND

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00587)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III

____________________________________

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

October 21, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 1, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM

Appellant Frederick Rolle, a Pennsylvania state prisoner who is proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, seeks review of the district court’s July 22, 2010 order dismissing 

his complaint.1

On June 29, 2010, the district court granted Rolle’s application to proceed in 

 For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the district court’s 

order.

I.

In March 2010, Rolle filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania, which named twenty-eight defendants and sought $1 

billion in damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged violations of his 

constitutional rights. In particular, Rolle asserted that several state and federal officials 

engaged in a multifaceted conspiracy to “steal[] Government Public funds on government 

property with help from Treasure, [and] to false[ly] imprison [] Rolle by clear absence of 

all jurisdiction.” Rolle also claimed, among other things, that he had been subject to 

malicious prosecution, and that several judges “created illegal nonprofit organization to 

steal indigent funds.” 

 1 Rolle also seeks to reopen his appeal from the district court’s March 25, 2010 

administrative order directing the prison warden to deduct, in installments, the $350.00 

filing fee from Rolle’s prison account. (C.A. No. 10-2055.) Because this order is 

reviewable under the current appeal, it is unnecessary to reopen Appeal No. 10-2055. 

We have therefore denied it by separate order. Further, the district court acted well 

within its authority in issuing the administrative order. Rolle filed an application for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a signed authorization form indicating that he 

understood that the full filing fee would be deducted from his prison account. 
3

forma pauperis and screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, determining that he 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court nevertheless 

gave Rolle an opportunity to file an amended complaint after concluding that it was not 

possible to “ascertain the nature of the constitutional violation Rolle alleges.”2

The district court’s June 29, 2010 and July 22, 2010 decisions explaining why 

Rolle’s complaint is deficient are thoughtful and comprehensive, and we see no reason to 

discuss Rolle’s claims in any detail here. Suffice it to say that the complaint was 

properly dismissed for the reasons fully explained by the district court. We also note that 

the district court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to dismiss the complaint. See

 The

district court ordered Rolle to file the amended complaint on or before July 12th, and 

informed him of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s requirements for the form and 

contents of complaints. Rolle did not, however, file an amended complaint, and on July 

22, 2010, the district court dismissed his complaint and closed the case. 

Rolle now appeals. 

II.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will summarily 

affirm the district court’s order because no substantial issues are presented on appeal. 

See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

 2 The district court denied Rolle’s initial motion to amend his complaint, noting 

that, because the complaint had not been served on the defendants and no responsive 

pleading had been filed, he did not need the court’s permission to amend his complaint. 

The sole amendment in the proposed complaint was to name only the United States as a 

defendant. 
4

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111-12 (3d Cir. 2002). Our concerns 

regarding sua sponte dismissals under this statute are not at issue here, as the district 

court provided Rolle with an opportunity to amend his complaint. See Alston v. Parker, 

363 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2004) (stating that if a complaint is vulnerable to 

dismissal, a district court must first permit the plaintiff to file a curative amendment 

unless the dismissal is justified by bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility). 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that this appeal presents “no substantial 

question,” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6, and will thus summarily affirm the district court’s July 22, 

2010 order.