Algieri v. Vanaskie

Third Circuit

Algieri v. Vanaskie

220 F. App'x 74

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 2007

Docket06-4238

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 F. App'x 74 (Algieri v. Vanaskie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Algieri v. Vanaskie, 220 F. App'x 74 (3d Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Sal Agieri, a resident of Peckville, Pennsylvania, appeals from the district court’s order, entered on September 19, 2006, dismissing his complaint with prejudice as legally and factually frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the following reasons, we will likewise dismiss Agieri’s appeal. 1 See id.

A specific account of the facts underlying Agieri’s allegations — to the extent such facts can be divined from his complaint — is unnecessary. Put simply, Agi *75 eri alleged impropriety on the part of Judge Thomas Vanaskie in connection with an alleged visit paid to Algieri’s home by two U.S. Marshals. Our review shows that it is beyond question that Algieri’s claims “rely on an ‘indisputably meritless legal theory’ or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.” Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir.2003) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)). Thus, the district court’s order dismissing the complaint was plainly correct. We also note, as evidenced by a cadre of exhibits attached to Algieri’s complaint, that the complaint under review is just one in a series of similar ad hominem attacks directed at judges who fail to rule in Algieri’s favor in various cases in which he is, or has been, involved. We will not facilitate the continuation of such conduct in this court. Given the above discussion, we agree with the district court that there was no need to provide Algieri an opportunity to further amend his complaint because any amendment would have ultimately proven futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that amendment “must be permitted ... unless it would be inequitable or futile”).

Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1

. This court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Sal Agieri, a resident of Peckville, Pennsylvania, appeals from the district court’s order, entered on September 19, 2006, dismissing his complaint with prejudice as legally and factually frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the following reasons, we will likewise dismiss Agieri’s appeal. 1 See id.

A specific account of the facts underlying Agieri’s allegations — to the extent such facts can be divined from his complaint — is unnecessary. Put simply, Agi *75 eri alleged impropriety on the part of Judge Thomas Vanaskie in connection with an alleged visit paid to Algieri’s home by two U.S. Marshals. Our review shows that it is beyond question that Algieri’s claims “rely on an ‘indisputably meritless legal theory’ or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.” Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir.2003) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)). Thus, the district court’s order dismissing the complaint was plainly correct. We also note, as evidenced by a cadre of exhibits attached to Algieri’s complaint, that the complaint under review is just one in a series of similar ad hominem attacks directed at judges who fail to rule in Algieri’s favor in various cases in which he is, or has been, involved. We will not facilitate the continuation of such conduct in this court. Given the above discussion, we agree with the district court that there was no need to provide Algieri an opportunity to further amend his complaint because any amendment would have ultimately proven futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002) (noting that amendment “must be permitted ... unless it would be inequitable or futile”).

Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1

. This court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 F. App'x 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/algieri-v-vanaskie-ca3-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack