Court Opinion

ID: 9956607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 17:00:38.62368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:42.034682
License: Public Domain

DLD-079                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 24-1084
                                      ___________

                              JEROME J. PATELUNAS, II,
                                               Appellant

                                             v.

ESTATE OF ANTHONY LUPAS JR.; UNKNOWN CO-CONSPIRATORS; LUZERNE
   COUNTY; F.B.I.; LUZERNE COUNTY SHERIFF; FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY
      COURT; STELL CONSTRUCTION; LAFLIN BOROUGH; G AND R
  ENGINEERING; DEPT. OF JUSTICE; JOSH SHAPIRO; PENN STATE POLICE;
   PENN ATTORNEY GENERAL; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
                       DAVID LUPAS; TINA GARTLEY
                   ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-02130)
                       District Judge: Honorable Julia K. Munley
                      ____________________________________

       Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
        Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                  February 29, 2024

                Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: April 2, 2024)
                                      _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM

       Pro se litigant Jerome J. Patelunas, II, appeals from the District Court’s decision

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without leave to amend and denying as moot

his motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily

affirm that judgment.

                                             I.

       In December 2023, Patelunas filed in the District Court his complaint and a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). That barebones complaint, which was

brought against certain companies and individuals, the estate of another individual, and

numerous governmental entities (including, among others, an unspecified federal

bankruptcy court, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Police,

and the FBI), appeared to allege that the defendants were part of some criminal

organization that had targeted Patelunas, his business, and his family so that he would not

reveal the organization’s “Ponzi-scheme and related criminal enterprises.” (Compl. 3.)

Patelunas asked the District Court to “make [him] whole,” (id.), and he moved for a

preliminary injunction.

       The District Court granted Patelunas’s IFP motion and screened his complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thereafter, on January 4, 2024, the District Court

dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, denied as moot his motion for a

preliminary injunction, and directed the District Court Clerk to close the case. In doing

                                             2
so, the District Court explained that the complaint was subject to dismissal for two

reasons (it was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted),

and that affording Patelunas leave to amend that pleading would be futile. This timely

appeal followed.

                                             II.

       We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise

de novo review over the District Court’s decision to dismiss Patelunas’s complaint

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373-74 (3d Cir. 2020).

“When reviewing a district court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction, we review

[any] findings of fact for clear error, [any] conclusions of law de novo, and [the court’s]

ultimate decision to deny the injunction for abuse of discretion.” Lara v. Comm’r Pa.

State Police, 91 F.4th 122, 128 n.5 (3d Cir. 2024). We may take summary action if this

appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

                                              3
                                              III.

       The District Court aptly observed that Patelunas’s complaint “offers no facts to

support his allegations of a ‘criminal organization’ and ‘Ponzi scheme,’ only

conclusions.” (Dist. Ct. Mem. 10.) Patelunas “offers no explanation how each of the

individual defendants fit into this alleged system,” or “how any of the defendants have

acted against him.” (Id.) Furthermore, although he asks to be made whole, “he does not

indicate any of the losses he has [allegedly] sustained as the result of the defendants’

conduct.” (Id.) At bottom, his complaint merely alleges “some nebulous ‘criminal

organization’ involving all levels of the government with no other facts.” (Id.) And his

motion for a preliminary injunction “simply recasts the bald allegations of the complaint

using different labels, including ‘organized crime,’ ‘RICO level criminal scheme,’ and

‘organized criminal cabal.’” (Id. At 11.)

       In view of the above, we find no error in the District Court’s decision to dismiss

Patelunas’s complaint, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 1 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (indicating

that, to survive dismissal, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” by alleging facts that “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of

misconduct” (citation to quoted case omitted)); see also LaSpina v. SEIU Pa. State

1
 Given our conclusion here, we need not examine the District Court’s alternative basis
for dismissing Patelunas’s complaint (i.e., that the complaint is frivolous).

                                               4
Council, 985 F.3d 278, 291 (3d Cir. 2021) (explaining that “leave to amend need not be

granted if amendment would be futile” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Nor did the

District Court err in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Because this appeal

does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s

judgment. 2 Patelunas’s “Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Immediate

Hearing” is denied.

2
 To the extent that Patelunas alleges that the presiding District Judge was biased against
him, we see no evidence of any bias. See generally Arrowpoint Cap. Corp. v.
Arrowpoint Asset Mgmt., LLC, 793 F.3d 313, 330 (3d Cir. 2015) (explaining that
“adverse rulings . . . are not in themselves proof of prejudice or bias”).

                                             5