Case Name: Owen Britton TROXELLE, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-30
Citations: 319 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 08-3773
Parties: Owen Britton TROXELLE, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America.
Judges: Before: McKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 176–178

Head Matter:
Owen Britton TROXELLE, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America.
No. 08-3773.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Feb. 12, 2009.
Filed: March 30, 2009.
Owen Britton Troxelle, Elverson, PA, pro se.
Joseph Trautwein, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
Before: McKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Owen Britton Troxelle filed a pro se complaint in the District of Columbia against the United States of America. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June 2008. On July 25, 2008, the District Court dismissed the action as legally and factually unintelligible, noting that despite reasonable efforts to discern the nature of Troxelle's claims the court was unable to understand the harm alleged or the relief sought. Troxelle filed a motion for "Correction of Records and Proper Situs of Case" and a motion for reconsideration, both of which the court denied. In its order denying reconsideration, the District Court noted that the case was closed and that it would consider no further pleadings from Troxelle. Troxelle appealed and the United States moved for summary affirmance of the District Court's order. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
Although not a model of clarity, Troxelle's complaint is factually intelligible. He brings suit under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, 50 U.S.C. app. § 9, 10. The basis of his claim appears to be that "liability" and involuntary servitude were imposed upon him when his parents requested a birth certificate and a social security number for him and that continued use of these identifying documents by state and federal agencies is fraudulent. Troxelle also asserts that he was "falsely registered directly or indirectly" under the Trading with the Enemy Act. All of these actions allegedly violate his property rights. He seeks millions of dollars in damages, as well as injunctive relief requiring various federal and state entities to correct their records and to cease violating the law. In support of his complaint, Troxelle submitted numerous exhibits, including correspondence with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Pennsylvania Division of Vital Records, and the United States Attorney General's Office in which he makes complaints, requests a criminal investigation, and submits invoices for damages due for alleged improper actions.
Although we can understand what is presented in the complaint, we agree with the District Court that the complaint is legally unintelligible in that it lacks an arguable basis in law or cognizable cause of action. Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Thus, we will summarily affirm the District Court's order dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we grant the government's motion for summary affir-mance and deny Troxelle's motions for a protective order and for reinstatement of the case.
. Because the District Court expressly closed the action and barred any further pleadings from Troxelle, Troxelle cannot cure the defect in his complaint and its dismissal is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d cir.1976) (per curiam).
. Troxelle filed a "Motion for a Protective Order" and a "Motion to Move This Court for Reinstatement of Case" in which he notified this Court of missing documents related to his complaint and provided those documents. We construe these motions as responses to Appellee's motion for summary affirmance and note that we have reviewed the filings.