2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-30-2012 

# P a tr ick D a niel T

i l lio , J r . v . Lo we r M e r ion T

o w nshi p P olice

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-2381

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" P a tr ick D a nie l T i l l io , J r

. v . L o w e r M e r ion T

o w n ship P o l ic e " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 514. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/5141



### GLD
- 246 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 2381

___________ PATRICK DANIEL TILLIO, JR., Appellant

v. LOWER MERION POLICE; LOWER MERION P OLICE DEPARTMENT

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 12

- cv - 02419 ) District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

__________________________________ __ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 2, 2012 Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and BARRY , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 30, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Patrick D aniel Tillio, J r. (“Tillio”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from t he District Court‟s order dismissing his complaint. We will summarily affirm.2 

### I. In April 2012, Tillio filed an application to p roceed in forma pauperis and a complaint alleging that the Lower Merion Police were violating his civil rights and working with people to take his father‟s home. (Dkt. No. 3.) By order entered May 8, 2012, t he District Court granted Tillio leave to proce ed in forma pauperis but dismi ssed his complaint without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 2.) Tillio was granted leave to amend his complaint within thirty days. Rather than filing an amended complaint, Tillio fi led a notice of a ppeal on May
11 , 2012. The Clerk no tified Tillio of a potential jurisdictional defect pursuant to Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) , and that his appeal would be submitted for possible summary action. Tillio did not respond.
II. Normally, an order that “dismisses a complaint without prejudice is neither final nor appealable” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. Borelli , 532 F.2d at 951 . Such an order becomes final and appealable, though, if the plaintiff “declares his intention to stand on his complaint” instead of amending it. Id. at 952. There is no “clear rule for determining when a party has elected to stand on his or her complaint.” Hagan v. Rogers , 570 F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2009) . However, when the District Court has provided a set amount of time within w hich to amend, and the plaintiff fails to do so, the Court may conclude that the plaintiff elected to stand on his c omplaint. Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co. , 977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir 1992) ; see also Hagan , 570 F.3d at 151 (concluding that plaintiffs st ood on their complaints because they filed3



### notices of appeal rather than amending within specified time period); Frederico v. Home Depot , 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (same). Tillio filed a notice of a ppeal, instead of amending his complaint, within the thirty

day window provided by the District Court. Therefore, Tillio elected to stand on his complaint, and the order of the District Court is final and appealable. We have jurisdiction over his appeal. Having determined that jurisdiction is proper, we may summarily affirm the decision of the District Court if no substantial question is presented on appeal. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. We agree with the District Court that Tillio‟s complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of Federal R ule of Civil Procedure 8(a) . He claimed that the Lower Merion Police were “going against [his] civil rights” and “work with people take home from dad.” (Dkt . No. 3, p. 3 .) Tillio did not state a ny particularized basis for the Lower Merion Police Departm ent ‟s liability , nor did he identify individual police officers who may have violated his rights. He named two individual s as additional defendants but did not describe any factual basis for their liability. Tillio also claimed that the police and others were trying to take his father‟s home. T he District Court correctly determined that “he does not have standing to raise claims based on injury sustained by his father.” (Dkt. No. 2, p. 2.) In sum, Tillio‟s complaint did not contain the requisite “sho rt and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) . Dismissal was therefore appropriate. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ( complaint4



### does not suffice “if it tenders „naked assertion[s]‟ d evoid of „further factual enhancement‟”) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 5 4 4, 557 (2007) ).
III. The District Court properly dismissed Tillio‟s complaint and allowed him leave to amend. We will summarily affirm the order of the District Co urt because no substantial question is presented by this appeal. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.