Court Opinion

ID: 9388749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 17:00:39.126694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.342755
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-1197
                                       __________

                                   DANIEL L. SPUCK,
                                               Appellant

                                             v.

                      MARY KATHRYN SALYNSKI, ESQUIRE
                      ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-22-cv-00344)
                        District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                    April 21, 2023

            Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: April 21, 2023)
                                      ___________

                                        OPINION *
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Daniel Spuck, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District

Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint. For the reasons

that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

       Without explanation, Spuck filed a notice of appeal from an order of the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which the District Court directed the Clerk of Court to file

as a civil rights complaint. Dkt. Nos. 2 at 2 & 3 at 1-3. The District Court, over Spuck’s

objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge and dismissed

the complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, without prejudice to Spuck’s

ability to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Dkt.

Nos. 7 & 9. Spuck filed a timely notice of appeal. Dkt. No. 12.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over

the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of Spuck’s complaint. Dooley v. Wetzel, 957

F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020).

       First, to the extent Spuck requested the District Court to review an order of the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the District Court was correct to dismiss that request based

on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257, 1331-32; Phila. Fed’n of

Teachers v. Ridge, 150 F.3d 319, 323 (3d Cir. 1998) (“It is the plaintiffs’ responsibility to

clearly allege facts that invoke the court’s jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). Second,

though his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R included more information than his

initial filing, see Dkt. Nos. 6 & 8, Spuck’s bare-bone references to a state court

                                              2
proceeding involving the same defendant named here are insufficient to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted, 1 see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

       Finally, Spuck argues on appeal that, because the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil

Procedure are ineffective and invalid, a state judge erred in awarding damages pursuant

to those rules in a state court proceeding in which Spuck was involved. C.A. Dkt. No. 4

at 3-4. That argument is underdeveloped and meritless. See Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c)

(providing power to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to prescribe rules); Dockery v.

Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., Inc., 253 A.3d 716, 721-22 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) (where

plaintiff’s constitutional attack on state procedural rules was not properly mounted

because she failed to contend that the state Supreme Court lacked any rational basis for

adopting the rule at issue).

       Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1
  Our review is limited to the record before the District Court, which did not include
specific information about the state court proceeding. See In re Capital Cities/ABC,
Inc.’s Application for Access to Sealed Transcripts, 913 F.2d 89, 96 (3d Cir. 1990). We
do not search unspecified state court records in an attempt to clarify an appellant’s
arguments.
                                              3