Court Opinion

ID: 9397140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 17:00:32.203345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.748757
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2866
                                       ___________

                                   AARON J. BRESSI,
                                                 Appellant

                                             v.

     JOHN GEMBIC; MICHAEL TOOMEY; PETER KAY; and VINNY CLAUSI
                ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                            (M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 4:17-cv-01405)
                      District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                    May 23, 2023
              Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: May 24, 2023)
                                     ___________

                                        OPINION *
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

       Proceeding pro se, Aaron Bressi filed a federal civil rights action against his

former employer and three participants in his prior criminal cases. The District Court

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
dismissed Bressi’s action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). We

affirmed. See Bressi v. Gembic, 752 F. App’x 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam).

Years later, Bressi filed motions in the District Court requesting permission to “refile” his

case. In denying the latest of the motions, the District Court determined that Bressi had

“failed to establish any basis to reopen this case.” Bressi now appeals that ruling. We

have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, agreeing with the District Court

that Bressi’s motion to “refile” was baseless, we will affirm the judgment below.

                                             2