Court Opinion

ID: 9393561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 17:00:55.448085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.965987
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
       FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
            _____________

                 No. 22-2465
                ____________

             JEFFREY D. HILL,
                         Appellant

                      v.

               SCOTT PERRY
                ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 4-22-cv-00560)
 District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

               _____________

                No. 22-2466
               _____________

             JEFFREY D. HILL,
                         Appellant

                      v.

              RICK SACCONE
               ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 4-22-cv-00689)
 District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
                                     _____________

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

       Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGARARD, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: May 10, 2023)
                                     ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

       In these consolidated appeals, pro se appellant Jeffrey Hill challenges orders

dismissing his civil actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the

following reasons, we will affirm.

       In 2022, Hill filed three similar actions seeking to remove political candidates

from the ballot and to bar them from holding office based on their alleged involvement in

the events that transpired at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The actions concerned

Doug Mastriano, then a candidate for Pennsylvania Governor; Rick Saccone, then a

candidate for Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor; and Scott Perry, then a candidate for

United States Congress. Approving and adopting a Magistrate Judge’s reports and

recommendations, the District Court dismissed the actions. Hill appealed in each case.

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
                                              2
We recently affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the action concerning Mastriano.

See Hill v. Mastriano, No. 22-2464, 2022 WL 16707073 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022).

       Since Hill’s claims in each case are materially identical, our analysis from

Mastriano applies with full force here, with one exception. Because the 2022 election has

already occurred, we are now unable to grant one form of relief that Hill requested—to

remove the candidates from the ballot. We therefore dismiss the appeals in part. See

generally Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996).

       To the extent Hill requested prospective relief (including removing Perry from

office and permanently disqualifying him or Saccone from holding office in the future),

we will affirm the District Court’s judgments for the reasons we provided in Mastriano.

That is, Hill lacks standing to pursue a claim under the “Disqualification Clause” of the

Fourteenth Amendment because he failed to allege a particularized injury. See

Mastriano, 2022 WL 16707073, at *1. The District Court also lacked jurisdiction to

consider Hill’s writ of quo warranto and, “[w]ithout an independent basis for subject

matter jurisdiction, the District Court could not issue mandamus relief.” Id. at *2.

       Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeals in part and otherwise affirm the District

Court’s judgments.

                                             3