Court Opinion

ID: 9440642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 17:00:40.28665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.265033
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-1612
                                       __________

                                 MICHAEL ROBINSON,
                                             Appellant

                                             v.

     CITY OF SHAMOKIN, PA; NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY; ANTHONY
    MATULEWICZ, Northumberland County, D.A.; DEGG STARK; LAURA JAMES
                 ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 4-22-cv-00045)
                      District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                    July 18, 2023

     Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed August 3, 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.
         Michael Robinson alleges that his political opponents conspired to have him

imprisoned in order to thwart his campaign for county commissioner, violating his

constitutional rights. The District Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a

claim, and Robinson now appeals. We will affirm.

                                       I.
         In 2019, Robinson announced his candidacy for Northumberland County

Commissioner. His amended complaint alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy by various

City and County officials to keep him off the campaign trail.1 He alleges that the

defendants, among other things: tricked him into missing an August 2019 court hearing,

resulting his arrest for failure to appear; subjected him to malicious prosecution for

allegedly disrupting an August 2019 Shamokin City Council meeting, causing him to be

charged criminally and jailed for several months;2 set his bail unconstitutionally high; and

burned his house down. (See ECF No. 17 at 2–9).3

1
    The amended complaint names five defendants: (1) the City of Shamokin; (2)
    Northumberland County; (3) Anthony Matulewicz, the Northumberland County district
    attorney; (4) Degg Stark, a police detective with the district attorney’s office; and (5)
    Laura James, a secretary with the district attorney’s office. (ECF No. 17 at 1). Robinson
    later filed a “Notice to Court,” seeking to add as defendants former Pennsylvania
    Governor Tom Wolf and current Governor Josh Shapiro. (ECF No. 25 at 2).
2
    Robinson filed a separate § 1983 lawsuit based on his alleged mistreatment while in the
    Northumberland County Jail awaiting trial. See M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:21-cv-1905. The
    District Court dismissed that case for failure to state a claim, and Robinson did not
    appeal.
3
    This is not the first time that Robinson has alleged a widespread conspiracy to harm him
    in retaliation for seeking public office. See Robinson v. Geisinger Hosp., 814 F. App’x
    670 (3d Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal of Robinson’s § 1983 complaint that named
    over 60 defendants).

                                               2
         The Magistrate Judge screened Robinson’s complained under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended that the District Court dismiss Robinson’s complaint for

failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.4 (ECF No. 23 at 5). The Magistrate Judge

also recommended that Robinson not be given leave to amend, reasoning that the facts

alleged in the complaint, the exhibits filed with it, and Robinson’s extensive history of

frivolous litigation would make any amendment futile. (Id. at 4). Additionally, the

Magistrate Judge recommended that Robinson’s motion for unspecified injunctive relief

be denied as moot. (Id. at 5).

         After reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and

Robinson’s objections to it, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report in its

entirety, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and denied Robinson’s motion

for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 26). Robinson appeals.5

                                              II.

         We decline to reach the merits of Robinson’s case because his appeal brief fails to

meaningfully present any issues to us for review. As a pro se appellant, Robinson is

afforded liberal construction of his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–

4
    Robinson’s pleadings do not reference § 1983 by name. Nonetheless, we agree with the
    District Court’s decision to construe Robinson’s complaint as attempting to state a claim
    under that statute, because the essence of his complaint is the alleged violation of his
    constitutional rights by state and local officials. See Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683,
    688 (3d Cir. 2002) (in reviewing a dismissal for failure to state claim, the Court of
    Appeals must interpret a pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally and apply the applicable
    law even if the plaintiff has not mentioned it by name).
5
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
                                               3
21 (1972). But the failure to raise an issue in an opening brief, even by pro se parties,

renders it forfeited. See Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002).

This is especially so for experienced pro se litigants like Robinson, who is no stranger to

this Court or to the District Court. 6 See Capogrosso v. The Supreme Ct. of New Jersey,

588 F.3d 180, 184 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009) (limiting review to only those issues raised in

litigant’s appeal brief because appellant was an experienced pro se litigant).

         To properly present an issue to the Court for review, a litigant’s opening brief

must include, among other things: a statement of the issue, the legal argument explaining

why the district court decided the issue incorrectly, and the facts and legal authorities

supporting that argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 28; L.R. App. P. 28.0. Robinson’s brief, by

contrast, is essentially just a restatement of his amended complaint. He asserts in

conclusory fashion that his complaint states a claim, but he presents no facts, legal

authorities, or argument explaining why the District Court’s contrary view was

erroneous. Therefore, we conclude that Robinson has forfeited review of this and all

other issues on appeal. See Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care Inc., 62 F.4th 755, 763

6
    See Robinson v. Northumberland Cnty. Jail, Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-01905, 2022 WL
    4227515 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2022); Robinson v. Geisinger Hosp., Civil Action No.
    4:18-cv-989, 2019 WL 4898778 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2019), report & recommendation
    adopted by 2019 WL 4885949 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2019), aff’d per curiam, 814 Fed.
    App’x 670 (3d Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 631 (2020); Robinson v. Leschinskie,
    Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-1416, 2018 WL 3487581 (M.D. Pa. June 27, 2018), report &
    recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 3473970 (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2018); Robinson v.
    Millbrand, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-1322, 2018 WL 2709375 (M.D. Pa. May 11,
    2018), report & recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 2689583 (M.D. Pa. June 5,
    2018); Robinson v. Northumberland Cnty. Children & Youth Servs., Civil No. 4:17-cv-
    1321, 2018 WL 3323630 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2018), report & recommendation adopted
    by 2018 WL 1517072 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2018).
                                               4
(3d Cir. 2023) (appellant whose brief made only passing reference to an issue forfeited

review of that issue).

                                     IV. Conclusion

       For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellant’s

outstanding motions are denied.

                                            5