Spence v. Water Revenue Bur , 237 F. App'x 751 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-2-2007
Spence v. Water Revenue Bur
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1084
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Spence v. Water Revenue Bur" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 820.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/820
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-272 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1084
________________
KEVIN SPENCE,
Appellant
v.
WATER REVENUE BUREAU, City of Philadelphia
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-05190)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
June 21, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed July 2, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Kevin Spence, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals an
order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The District Court
dismissed the complaint without prejudice and gave Spence an opportunity to file an
amended complaint. Spence chose to commence the instant appeal rather than file an
amended complaint, thereby expressing his intention to stand on his complaint as filed.
The order being appealed is therefore final and appealable. See Borelli v. City of
Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976).
We agree with the District Court that the complaint is inadequate under the notice
pleading requirements of F ED. R. C IV. P. 8(a). As best we can tell from the cryptic
statements in the complaint, the instant suit arises from a billing dispute with the Water
Revenue Bureau. However, despite affording Spence the leeway properly allowed pro se
litigants, we are unable to discern the factual basis for his claims or the legal theory on
which he relies. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
2