2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-6-2012

Justin Credico v. CEO Idaho National Laboratory

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3890

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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

"Justin Credico v. CEO Idaho National Laboratory" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1455.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1455
1

ALD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3890

___________

JUSTIN MICHAEL CREDICO

"JMC31337"

 Justin Michael Credico,

 Appellant 

v.

CEO IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY; ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, INDIVIDUAL AND 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CEO SIEMENS (NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS AND 

SOFTWARE), INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2-11-cv-06025)

District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez

____________________________________

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

January 26, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 6, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM
2

Credico, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District 

Court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

Although a district court should generally give leave to amend prior to dismissing 

under these circumstances or make its own determination whether any amendment would 

be futile, 

 His

complaint consisted of, as the District Court noted, “largely incomprehensible and 

fanciful claims.” Specifically, Credico alleged that he had examined the “Stuxnet” 

computer virus and determined that it had been compiled by the United States for use as a 

weapon and that its deployment constituted a declaration of war without Congressional 

approval. He argued that these actions violated his rights under the 14th Amendment to 

the Constitution as they could have resulted in a nuclear winter. He sought one million 

dollars in damages, as well as “a lil [sic] video hearing chat,” a television whereby he and 

his cellmate can watch the news, a laptop, Lexis Nexis software, Windows Vista, and 

“Scholarship.”

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.

 1 This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and its 

review of a District Court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim is 

plenary. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). A court may 

dismiss a complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if the action “lacks an arguable basis 

, 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002), we are 

satisfied—especially in light of Credico’s subsequent filings—that the District Court did 

not err in dismissing his complaint without affording Credico leave to amend as any 

amendment would have been futile. He offers nothing by way of explanation how, even 

if his outlandish claims were true, any constitutional rights are implicated. In fact, 
3

Credico stated in his Notice of Appeal that he will proffer evidence of his claims only 

after he is awarded a judgment of at least $60,000. We hold that this appeal is frivolous, 

and will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

 

either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).