Court Opinion

ID: 9896217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 20:00:42.059712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:23.603446
License: Public Domain

CLD-007                                                  NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                              ___________

                                 No. 23-1507
                                 ___________

       PRESIDENT MICHAEL CONIKER; RESOURCE SOLUTIONS LLC

                                       v.

   BISHOP JEFFREY MONFORTOH; RANDY CHRISTENSEN, PRESIDENT
  (AFC.ORG); JOSEPH E. HUDAK, ESQ.; KYLE BROWN, DIRECTOR, BANK
      ESCALATIONS GROUP; PNC BANK; PA STATE POLICE; STATE
TROOPER PADASAK; THE MEADOWS PSYCHIATRIC CENTER; USA FBI; FBI
  AGENT SCOTT FRANCIS; MATTHEW SENTNER, PA, BELLEVUE POLICE
  CHIEF; WILLIAM A. MC CAFFERTY, OH, STEUBENVILLE POLICE CHIEF;
             ANDREW HREZO; DIOCESE OF STEUBENVILLE

                              Michael Coniker,
                                        Appellant
                   ____________________________________

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                     (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-01184)
                  District Judge: Honorable Marilyn J. Horan
                  ____________________________________

  Submitted for Possible Summary Action, and on Appellees’ Motions for Summary
             Action, Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                  October 12, 2023
           Before: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                       (Opinion filed: November 9, 2023)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Michael Coniker, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District

Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that granted motions to dismiss his second

amended complaint because it failed to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Most of the

appellees have moved for summary affirmance. For the following reasons, we grant

those motions and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

       Coniker filed a complaint, which he later amended, on his own behalf and on

behalf of Resource Solutions, LLC. (ECF 1; 9.) The District Court dismissed the

amended complaint without prejudice because it did “not pass ‘the threshold requirement

of Rule 8(a)(2) that the “plain statement” possess enough heft to “sho[w] that the

pleader is entitled to relief.”’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007).”

(ECF 13, at 3.) The District Court provided Coniker 30 days to file an amended

complaint. (Id. at 10.) Coniker then filed a second amended complaint, naming 14

defendants. (ECF 21.) All but two of those defendants filed motions to dismiss. (ECF

24 & 25; 26 & 27; 32; 33 & 34; 35 & 36; 38 & 39; 43 & 44; 55 & 56.) The District

Court granted those motions and sua sponte dismissed the two nonmoving defendants,

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
                                             2
explaining that the second amended complaint still “provide[d] no supporting factual

allegations to support any of the named claims.” (ECF 75, at 7.) Coniker timely

appealed.1 (ECF 84.) The parties who filed motions to dismiss in the District Court have

requested that we summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. (Docs. 14; 18; 22 &

35; 24; 25; 29; 33; 34.)

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review for abuse of

discretion the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the

requirements of Rule 8. See Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019).

       Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Whether the “short and plain statement”

requirement is satisfied “is a context-dependent exercise.” W. Penn Allegheny Health

Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85, 98 (3d Cir. 2010). “Fundamentally, Rule 8 requires

that a complaint provide fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Garrett, 938 F.3d at 92 (cleaned up). Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual

allegations,” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008), but a

complaint must contain “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In assessing whether a complaint complies with Rule 8, we “are

1
  Coniker cannot proceed pro se in this appeal on behalf of Resources Solutions, LLC.
See Simbraw v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 373-744 (3d Cir. 1966) (per curiam)
(providing that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel);
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 672 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (stating that an
individual proceeding pro se may not represent third parties in federal court).
                                             3
more forgiving of pro se litigants for filing relatively unorganized or somewhat lengthy

complaints.” Garrett, 938 F.3d at 92.

       We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that

Coniker’s second amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8. See id. at 92 (stating

that “the question before us is not whether we might have chosen a more lenient course

than dismissal . . . but rather whether the District Court abused its discretion in ordering

the dismissal”) (citation omitted). In that complaint, Coniker listed several items that

were at issue in the case: “Freedom of religious beliefs and expression,” “freedom of

unjust confinement,” “freedom of thought expression,” “excessive bail,” “due process,”

“feel safe in home and in belongings,” and “honest treatment by law enforcement and

health case system.” (ECF 21, at 4.) The remainder of the complaint reads in its entirety

as follows:

       $8,000,700.00 … [is] owed to Plaintiff as a basic reclamation of huge damages
       done to the family life [of] Michael Coniker and his biological children of God
       and Marie Annette Coniker prior to the calculated damages and compounded
       violations of rights the Jerry and Gwen Coniker family unjustly judged on March
       17, 2012 and April 2nd, 2012. Andrew Hrezo and Bishop Jeffrey Monforton are
       involved in independent attacks against Michael Coniker and the truth regarding
       the formal inquisition the Diocese of Steubenville opened in the year 2007. That
       Coniker legacy matter went rogue and illegal on April 2nd, 2012. Andrew Hrezo
       also hired a lawyer to argue the [grossly unjust] Order of Court issued by Judge
       Donald R. Walko, Jr., on 19 Sept. 2012 (AC Family Court) was obsolete; then
       days later that order was used to wrongfully remove thousands of dollars from
       Plaintiff's Resource Solutions bank account. Since March 28, 2012, Michael
       Coniker has become a [whistle] blower, an inadvertent side effect of the CT idea
       that God put in his brain that day.

This quotation makes clear that the complaint lacked a comprehendible factual narrative

underpinning any of the above-listed items. Indeed, Coniker failed to connect the vague

                                              4
bases for relief to any facts demonstrating that the defendants may be liable for

misconduct. The complaint mentioned only two of the defendants who were listed in the

caption, Andrew Hrezo and Bishop Jeffrey Monforton, and those references fell well

short of putting the defendants on notice of any claims against them. We thus conclude

that this is a case where the “complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise

unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”2 Garrett, 938 F.3d at 94

(quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)).

       For the foregoing reasons, this appeal does not present a substantial question.

Accordingly, we grant the appellees’ motions for summary action and will affirm the

District Court’s judgment.

2
 We also agree that providing Coniker with leave to file a third amended complaint
would have been futile, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. See Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
                                              5