Abrahim Fata v. Jacqueline Amantine

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 25-2077
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

BLD-013 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-2077 ___________

ABRAHIM FATA, Appellant

v.

JAQUELINE AMANTINE; SON OF JACQUELINE ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-04862) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 16, 2025 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 6, 2026) _________

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

Appellant Abrahim Fata, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the District

Court’s order dismissing his amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will

summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In September 2024, Fata filed his civil rights complaint against defendants

Jacqueline Amantine and one of her sons. In his complaint, Fata raised multiple federal

constitutional and civil rights claims, state tort claims, and alleged that defendants had

violated multiple federal criminal statutes. Fata also alleged that defendants’ actions

assisted a conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of his children. After granting Fata’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the District Court: (1) dismissed Fata’s

conspiracy allegations as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

(2) dismissed Fata’s constitutional and civil rights claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim; (3) dismissed Fata’s criminal allegations

because the statutes do not give rise to a private cause of action; and (4) dismissed Fata’s

state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (5) dismissed for lack of

standing any claims that Fata sought to bring on behalf of his children.

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

Fata’s allegations liberally and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s

dismissal order. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373-74 (3d Cir. 2020) (citations

2 omitted). We may summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a substantial question.

See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4.

We agree with the District Court’s decision to dismiss this case. To the extent that

Fata sought to bring any claims on behalf of his children, he is not an attorney and cannot

represent them pro se. See Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d

Cir. 1991). On his conspiracy claim, Fata’s complaint lacks specific factual allegations to

explain how he is entitled to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Fata’s belief that a conspiracy exists, and that defendants’ actions assisted the conspiracy,

is not sufficient to survive dismissal. See Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir.

2013) (“[W]e are not compelled to accept unsupported conclusions and unwarranted

inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as factual allegation.”) (citation omitted).

Fata’s attempt to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails because defendants,

who are private citizens, are not state actors and were not acting under color of law. See

Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 646 (3d Cir. 2009). His attempt to bring claims under the

federal criminal statutes fails because criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a

private cause of action. See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of

Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994). Finally, the District Court correctly dismissed

Fata’s state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he failed to allege a

basis for diversity jurisdiction. See McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281,

3 286 (3d Cir. 2006). Having dismissed all of Fata’s claims over which it had original

jurisdiction, the District Court then acted within its discretion in declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. See Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584

F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2009).

Considering the foregoing, the District Court did not abuse its discretion or

otherwise err in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend after determining that

further amendment would have been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293

F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s

judgment.1

1 Although Fata’s Motion for a More Definite Statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(B) is denied because those rules are not applicable to filings before this Court, in light of his pro se status, we have reviewed the Motion in its entirety and taken it into account in reaching the foregoing conclusions.