NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

______ _

__ __

No. 2 2

- 2 4 6 4

__________

JEFFREY D. HILL,

Appellant

v.

DOUG MASTRIANO

_________________________ ___________

On Appeal from the Unite d St ates District Court

for th e M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 4

- 2 2

- c v

- 0 0 5 5 6 )

District Judge: Ho norable M a t t h e w W

. B r a n n

__________________ __________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

O n November 4

, 2 0 2 2

Bef ore: A M B R O

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. a n d N Y G A A R D

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion file d : November 4 , 2022 )

_________ __

OPINION *

___________

PER CU RIAM

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the f u ll C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does no t

constitute binding precedent.2 A p p e l l a n t J e f f r e y H i l l a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i s m i s s i n g h i s

c i v i l a c t i o n

. F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l a f f

i r m

.

H i l l f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g a w r i t q u o w a r r a n t o a n d a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s t o h a v e

D o u g M a s t r i a n o

, a P e n n s y l v a n i a s t a t e s e n a t o r a n d g u b e r n a t o r i a l c a n d i d a t e

, disqualified

f r o m t h e b a l l o t

. H i l l ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s a r e o u t l i n e d i n t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ’ s R e p o r t a n d

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ( R & R ) a n d n e e d n o t b e r e c i t e d h e r e

. I n s u m

, H i l l a l l e g e d t h a t

M a s t r i a n o i s disqualified t o b e a c a n d i d a t e f o r G o v e r n o r b a s e d

, i n p a r t

, o n h i s a l l e g e d

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e e v e n t s t h a t t r a n s p i r e d a t t h e U

. S

. C a p i t o l o n J a n u a r y 6

, 2 0 2 1

. C a l v i n

C l e m e n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e

, w i t h a p r o p o s e d counterclaim c o m p l a i n t

, w h i c h

c o n t a i n e d s i m i l a r a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t M a s t r i a n o

. H i l l o b j e c t e d t o t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n

.

I n h i s R & R

, t he Magistrate Judge noted that a 2 0 1 1 filing in junction again st Hi ll

require d him to receive certific ation from a Magistra te Judge before fili ng a c ivil action.

The Magistrate Judge explained that, to the ext e nt t h a t the injunction was enforceable, he

would decline to certify the complaint b e c a u s e H i l l l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g a f e d e r a l q u o

w a r r a n t o c l a i m a n d t h e D i s t r i c t Cour t l a c k s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t t h e r e q u e s t e d

m a n d a m u s r e l i e f

. In the alternative, t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e recommended that H i l l ’ s

m o t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u

p e r i s b e g r a n t e d

, t h a t t he complaint be di smisse d pu rsuan t

to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for fai lure to s tate a claim upon wh ich re lief may be granted

, a n d

t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e b e d e n i e d

. 1 T h e D i s t r i c t Court a d o p t e d t h e R & R

, g r a n t e d

1 C lements filed objections to the R&R , a nd sepa r atel y appealed. Se e C.A. No. 22

- 2420.

That ap peal was dism is sed for failure to prose cute.3 l e a v e t o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s

, d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n w i t h p r e j u d i c e

, a n d d e n i e d t h e

m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e

. H i l l f i l e d a t i m e l y appeal

.

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. We exercise pl e nary re view

over the District Court's dismissal f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m

. See Allah v. Se iverling

,

229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d C i r. 2000). W e may affirm t h e D is trict C ou rt’s decision on any

basis supported by the record

. S e e Murra y v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 2 4 6, 247 (3d Cir. 2011)

(per curiam)

.

H i l l f i r s t a r g u e s o n a p p e a l t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s h i s c l a i m u n d e r

S e c t i o n 3 o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

, t h e “ D is quali fication C l a u s e

, ” w h i c h i n p a r t

p r o v i d e s t h a t n o p e r s o n w h o h a s p r e v i o u s l y t a k e n a n o a t h a s a m e m b e r o f a n y S t a t e

l e g i s l a t u r e s h a l l h o l d a S t a t e o f f

i c e i f h e h a s e n g a g e d i n i n s u r r e c t i o n o r r e b e l l i o n against

t h e S t a t e

. U

. S

. C o n s t

. , A m e n d

. 1 4

, § 3

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t H i l l s o u g h t d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f

b a s e d o n t h i s p r o v i s i o n o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

, t h e c l a i m w a s s u b j e c t t o d i s m i s s a l

b e c a u s e H i l l l a c k s A r t i c l e I I I s t a n d i n g t o p u r s u e i t

. I n p a r t i c u l a r

, h e f a i l e d t o a l l e g e a n

“ i n j u r y i n f a c t

. ” S e e L u j a n v

. D e f e n d e r s o f W i l d l i f e

, 5 0 4 U

. S

. 5 5 5

, 5 6 0 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. T h a t i s

,

H i l l f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y a “ p a r t i c u l a r i z e d ” i n j u r y

– o n e a f f

e c t i n g h i m a s opposed t o t h e

general p u b l i c

– w h i c h i s t r a c e a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c a n d i d a c y f o r G o v e r n o r

. S e e i d

. ;

s e e a l s o S t e n c i l v

. J o h n s o n

, N o

. 2 2

- C

- 0 3 0 5

, - - - F

. S u p p

. 3 d

- - - , 2 0 2 2 W L 1 9 5 6 9 9 9

, * 3

( E

. D

. W i s c

. J u n e 3

, 2 0 2 2 ) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f

s l a c k e d s t a n d i n g “ b e c a u s e t h e

c h a l l e n g e d c o n d u c t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s

– s e e k i n g r e e l e c t i o n t o p u b l i c office

– d o e s n o t

i n v a d e a n y l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f

s ” )

.4 T h e D i s t r i c t Court l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r H i l l ’ s w r i t o f q u o w a r r a n t o

,

w h i c h is the appropriate process for t esting title to pub lic office. S ee Un ited States v.

Malmin , 272 F. 785, 790 (3d Cir. 19 21) ; s ee also Commonwealt h ex re l. Jud. Conduct

Bd. v. Griffin , 918 A.2d 87, 93 (P a . 2007) (“Q uo warranto is a challenge to the title or

right to public office.”). B u t f e d e ra l c o u r t s h a v e n o g e n e r a l q u o w a r r a n t o j u r i s d i c t i o n

.

S e e U

. S

. e x r e l

. S t a t e o f W i s

. v

. F i r s t F e d

. S a v s

. a n d L o a n A s s ’ n

, 2 4 8 F

. 2 d 8 0 4

, 8 0 9 ( 7 t h

C i r

. 1 9 5 7 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t “ e x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d b y s t a t u t e

, t h e r e i s n o

o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n in the f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n a n i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e n a t u r e

o f q u o w a r r a n t o ” ) ; B a r a n y v

. B u l l e r

, 6 7 0 F

. 2 d 7 2 6

, 7 3 5 ( 7 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 2 )

. F e d e r a l s t a t u t e

p r o v i d e s f o r t h e r e m o v a l o f f

e d e r a l o f f

i c i a l s b y w a y o f q u o w a r r a n t o b r o u g h t i n t h e

D i s t r i c t Court f or t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a

, s e e D

. C

. C o d e § 1 6

- 3 5 0 3

. Se e D r a k e v

.

O b a m a

, 6 6 4 F

. 3 d 7 7 4

, 7 8 4

- 8 5 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 1 )

. A n d

, u n d e r t h a t s t a t u t e

, a n d traditionally

,

q u o w a r r a n t o i s brought only by the sovereign or a representative of the sovereign. See

D r a k e

, 6 6 4 F

. 3 d a t 7 8 5 ; Count ry Cl ub Estate s L. L. C. v. Town of Loma Linda , 213 F.3d

1001, 1003 (8th Ci r. 2000) ; Grif fin , 918 A.2d at 93 (stating that “standing to pur s ue quo

warranto is gene rally within a public entity such as, the Attorney General, or the local

district attorney”). H e r e

, H i l l

, a s a n i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n

, s e e k s t o c h a l l e n g e a s t a t e

o f f

i c i a l ’ s a b i l i t y t o h o l d s t a t e o f f

i c e

. 2 A b s e n t d i v e r s i t y o r f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n

,

n o t p r e s e n t h e r e

, t h e D i s t r i c t Court l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s i d e r a n y s t a t e q u o w a r r a n t o

a c t i o n

.

2 Given our disposition

, we need not opi n e on the propriety of Hill ’ s use of a writ of quo5 W i t h o u t a n i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s f o r s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n

, t h e D i s t r i c t Court

c o u l d n o t i s s u e m a n d a m u s r e l i e f

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. C h r i s t i a n

, 6 6 0 F

. 2 d 8 9 2

, 8 9 4 ( 3 d C i r

.

1 9 8 1 ) ; U

. S

. e x r e l

. S t a t e o f W i s

. , 2 4 8 F

. 2 d a t 8 0 9 ( n o t i n g t h a t “ m a n d a m u s m a y n o t i s s u e

i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t u n l e s s i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f i n d e p e n d e n t l y c o n f e r

r e d

j u r i s d i c t i o n ” )

. A n d

, i n a n y e v e n t

, t he D i s t r i c t Court l a c k e d m a n d a m u s a u t h o r i t y t o

c o m p e l a s t a t e a g e n c y o r o f f

i c i a l t o r e m o v e M a s t r i a n o f r o m t h e b a l l o t

. S e e In re

Wo lenski , 324 F.2 d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam) (e xpl a ining that a district court

lacked jurisdiction “to issue a writ of m and a mus compelling action by a state official”)

.

B a s e d o n t h e f o r e g o i n g

, t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y dismi ssed t h e a c t i o n w i t h

prejudice

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f f

i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

warranto to pre vent a n official from assuming title to office

.