Court Opinion

ID: 9402703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 17:01:32.121362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.066785
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                           ___________

                               No. 22-2730
                               ___________

                            AARON J. BRESSI,
                                          Appellant

                                     v.

        TRACY MCCLOUD; BRITTANY DUKE; RONALD MCCLAY;
        MATTHEW NARCAVAGE; DANIEL SHOOP; JILL HENRICH;
    TERRY KECHEM; PATROLMAN ADAMS; CHRISTOPHER LAPOTSKY;
        JOHN GEMBIC; OFFICE CLERKS, Sunbury District Magistrate;
    MICHAEL P. TOOMEY; MICHAEL SEWARD; DEGG STARK; JILL FRY;
  CHARLES SAYLOR; PAIGE ROSINI; WARDEN SNYDER COUNTY PRISON;
OFFICE CLERKS, Snyder County Prison; EDWARD GRECO; MICHAEL SUIDERS;
      JAMES BEST; VINCE ROVITO; RACHAEL GLASSO; AMY STOAK;
     KIMBERLY BICKERT; CATHY DUZICK; MICHAEL FANTAGROSSE;
 JENNIFER FANTAGROSSE; RICHARD STIENHEART; GINGER STIENHEART;
  JEFFREY LEACH; DENISE CARNUCCIO; JEFFREY LONG; TYLER MUMMY;
   KIMBERLY SEDDON; CHASTITY SEDDON; WARDEN BRUCE KOVACH;
   DEPUTY WARDEN JAMES SMINK; and COUNSELOR SAMUEL KRANZEL
                ____________________________________

               On Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                      (M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 4:18-cv-01345)
                District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
                ____________________________________

               Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                               June 13, 2023
         Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                       (Opinion filed: June 16, 2023)

                               ___________
                                        OPINION *
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

       Proceeding pro se, Aaron Bressi filed a civil rights action against dozens of

people. The District Court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and

1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. We affirmed. See Bressi v. McCloud, C.A. Nos.

20-1077 & 20-1758, 2021 WL 5054351, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2021) (per curiam).

       Months later, Bressi twice asked the District Court to “refile” his case. The

District Court entered a pair of orders denying relief, the second of which stated that

Bressi had “failed to provide any basis to reopen this case” and that “[t]he Court will not

entertain any further motions to ‘refile’ in this matter.” This timely appeal of the second

order followed.

       We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Bressi’s opening brief

merely re-argues the merits of his prior appeal in the underlying litigation, and at times

mistakenly references a decision of this Court resolving one of his appeals in separate

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
                                              2
litigation. In short, nowhere in the brief does Bressi identify a valid basis to disturb the

order of the District Court that is the subject of this appeal. 1 Accordingly, we will affirm.

1
 Bressi’s post-briefing motion requesting that the Court accept a document from his
separate, pending habeas proceeding as “evidence towards [this] case” is denied.
                                            3