CLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 23-1507

___________

PRESIDENT MICHAEL CONIKER; RESOURCE SOLUTIONS LLC

v.

BISHOP JEFFREY MONFORTOH; RANDY CHRISTENSEN, PRESIDENT 

(AFC.ORG); JOSEPH E. HUDAK, ESQ.; KYLE BROWN, DIRECTOR, BANK 

ESCALATIONS GROUP; PNC BANK; PA STATE POLICE; STATE 

TROOPER PADASAK; THE MEADOWS PSYCHIATRIC CENTER; USA FBI; FBI 

AGENT SCOTT FRANCIS; MATTHEW SENTNER, PA, BELLEVUE POLICE 

CHIEF; WILLIAM A. MC CAFFERTY, OH, STEUBENVILLE POLICE CHIEF; 

ANDREW HREZO; DIOCESE OF STEUBENVILLE

Michael Coniker, 

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-01184)

District Judge: Honorable Marilyn J. Horan

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action, and on Appellees’ Motions for Summary 

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

October 12, 2023

Before: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 9, 2023)
2

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Michael Coniker, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that granted motions to dismiss his second

amended complaint because it failed to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Most of the 

appellees have moved for summary affirmance. For the following reasons, we grant 

those motions and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Coniker filed a complaint, which he later amended, on his own behalf and on 

behalf of Resource Solutions, LLC. (ECF 1; 9.) The District Court dismissed the 

amended complaint without prejudice because it did “not pass ‘the threshold requirement 

of Rule 8(a)(2) that the “plain statement” possess enough heft to “sho[w] that the

pleader is entitled to relief.”’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007).” 

(ECF 13, at 3.) The District Court provided Coniker 30 days to file an amended 

complaint. (Id. at 10.) Coniker then filed a second amended complaint, naming 14 

defendants. (ECF 21.) All but two of those defendants filed motions to dismiss. (ECF 

24 & 25; 26 & 27; 32; 33 & 34; 35 & 36; 38 & 39; 43 & 44; 55 & 56.) The District 

Court granted those motions and sua sponte dismissed the two nonmoving defendants, 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
3

explaining that the second amended complaint still “provide[d] no supporting factual 

allegations to support any of the named claims.” (ECF 75, at 7.) Coniker timely 

appealed.1 (ECF 84.) The parties who filed motions to dismiss in the District Court have 

requested that we summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. (Docs. 14; 18; 22 & 

35; 24; 25; 29; 33; 34.)

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review for abuse of 

discretion the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the 

requirements of Rule 8. See Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019).

Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Whether the “short and plain statement” 

requirement is satisfied “is a context-dependent exercise.” W. Penn Allegheny Health 

Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85, 98 (3d Cir. 2010). “Fundamentally, Rule 8 requires 

that a complaint provide fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.” Garrett, 938 F.3d at 92 (cleaned up). Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual 

allegations,” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008), but a 

complaint must contain “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In assessing whether a complaint complies with Rule 8, we “are 

1 Coniker cannot proceed pro se in this appeal on behalf of Resources Solutions, LLC. 

See Simbraw v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 373-744 (3d Cir. 1966) (per curiam) 

(providing that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel); 

Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 672 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (stating that an 

individual proceeding pro se may not represent third parties in federal court).
4

more forgiving of pro se litigants for filing relatively unorganized or somewhat lengthy 

complaints.” Garrett, 938 F.3d at 92. 

We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that 

Coniker’s second amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8. See id. at 92 (stating 

that “the question before us is not whether we might have chosen a more lenient course 

than dismissal . . . but rather whether the District Court abused its discretion in ordering 

the dismissal”) (citation omitted). In that complaint, Coniker listed several items that 

were at issue in the case: “Freedom of religious beliefs and expression,” “freedom of 

unjust confinement,” “freedom of thought expression,” “excessive bail,” “due process,” 

“feel safe in home and in belongings,” and “honest treatment by law enforcement and 

health case system.” (ECF 21, at 4.) The remainder of the complaint reads in its entirety 

as follows:

$8,000,700.00 ... [is] owed to Plaintiff as a basic reclamation of huge damages 

done to the family life [of] Michael Coniker and his biological children of God 

and Marie Annette Coniker prior to the calculated damages and compounded 

violations of rights the Jerry and Gwen Coniker family unjustly judged on March 

17, 2012 and April 2nd, 2012. Andrew Hrezo and Bishop Jeffrey Monforton are 

involved in independent attacks against Michael Coniker and the truth regarding 

the formal inquisition the Diocese of Steubenville opened in the year 2007. That 

Coniker legacy matter went rogue and illegal on April 2nd, 2012. Andrew Hrezo 

also hired a lawyer to argue the [grossly unjust] Order of Court issued by Judge 

Donald R. Walko, Jr., on 19 Sept. 2012 (AC Family Court) was obsolete; then 

days later that order was used to wrongfully remove thousands of dollars from 

Plaintiff's Resource Solutions bank account. Since March 28, 2012, Michael 

Coniker has become a [whistle] blower, an inadvertent side effect of the CT idea 

that God put in his brain that day.

This quotation makes clear that the complaint lacked a comprehendible factual narrative 

underpinning any of the above-listed items. Indeed, Coniker failed to connect the vague 
5

bases for relief to any facts demonstrating that the defendants may be liable for 

misconduct. The complaint mentioned only two of the defendants who were listed in the 

caption, Andrew Hrezo and Bishop Jeffrey Monforton, and those references fell well 

short of putting the defendants on notice of any claims against them. We thus conclude 

that this is a case where the “complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise 

unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”2 Garrett, 938 F.3d at 94 

(quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)). 

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal does not present a substantial question. 

Accordingly, we grant the appellees’ motions for summary action and will affirm the 

District Court’s judgment.

2 We also agree that providing Coniker with leave to file a third amended complaint 

would have been futile, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by 

dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. See Grayson v. Mayview State 

Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).