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

2-6-2012 

# J u s t in C r edico v

. C E O I d aho N a t ion al L a

b or a t or y
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 . 11-3890

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

" J us t in C r e d ic o v

. C E O I d aho N a t ion al L a

bor a t or y " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1455. 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_2012/1455

### 1 ALD
- 090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 3890

___________ JU STIN MICHAEL CREDICO "JMC31337" Justin Michael Credico, Appellant

v. CEO IDAHO NATIONAL L ABORATORY, 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 Unite d 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) o r 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 de termination whether any amendment would be futile, His complaint consisted of , as the District Court noted, “ largely incomprehe nsible 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 i ts deployment constituted a declar ation 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

. H e 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 dis missal 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) , w e are

s atisfied

— especially in light of Credico’s subsequent filings

— that the District Court did
not err in dismiss ing his complaint withou t 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 th at he will proffer evidence of his claims only after he is awarded a judgment of at least $60,000. W e 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).