William Karn v. Clayton Morrow ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                  NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
    
                                          No. 10-2994
                                         ____________
    
                                      WILLIAM S. KARN,
    
                                                    Appellant
    
                                               v.
    
                          CLAYTON S. MORROW; PROTHONOTARY;
                                BOROUGH OF BEN AVON
                                         ____________
    
                        On Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                                    (D.C. No. 10-cv-00424)
                        District Judge: Honorable William L. Standish
                                        ____________
    
                          Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                     February 17, 2011
    
      Before: SLOVITER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges and JONES*, District Judge.
    
                                   (Filed: February 25, 2011)
    
                                         ____________
    
                                  OPINION OF THE COURT
                                       ____________
    
    
    
    
          *
           The Honorable C. Darnell Jones, District Judge for the United States District
    Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
    
              William S. Karn appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint against the
    
    Borough of Ben Avon, the Allegheny County Prothonotary, and Clayton S. Morrow. We will
    
    affirm.
    
              On March 30, 2010, Karn brought suit alleging that Defendants violated his Thirteenth
    
    and Fourteenth Amendment rights by subjecting him to involuntary servitude and depriving him
    
    of equal protection of the law. Karn later amended his complaint to add a breach of contract
    
    claim against Morrow. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint, finding that it
    
    failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and sought an
    
    impermissible advisory opinion. This appeal followed.
    
              On appeal, Karn presents a host of new issues, none of which he raised in the District
    
    Court. Specifically, he contends that the Constitution empowers the federal government to seize
    
    control of the state judiciaries and create a single unified federal court system. According to
    
    Karn, this process might be achieved by “replacing the human analytical process with a rivaling
    
    super computer” in order to allow “[d]igital logic [to] assist and ultimately supplant human
    
    logic.” Br. at 7. Although this suggested reform more closely resembles the writings of Isaac
    
    Asimov than Thomas Paine (to whom Karn compares himself), his goal—to create a system
    
    where “judges are not . . . elected to office by election campaigns and public vote,” Br. at 4—is
    
    the subject of discussion in appropriate fora.1
    
    
    
              1
             See, e.g., Colloquium, The Debate Over Judicial Elections and State Court
    Judicial Selection, 21 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1347 (2008) (organized by the Sandra Day
    O’Connor Project on the State of the Judiciary).
    
                                                      2
           A federal court of appeals, however, is not such a forum. However thought-provoking
    
    Karn’s ideas may be, his appeal fails to challenge any of the District Court’s findings of fact or
    
    law. Because Karn’s appeal does not address the merits of his underlying claim or any purported
    
    errors committed by the District Court, we hold that he has waived any grounds for appeal he
    
    might have asserted. See In re Surrick, 
    338 F.3d 224
    , 237 (3d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we will
    
    summarily affirm the District Court’s order pursuant to Third Circuit Internal Operating
    
    Procedure 10.6.
    
    
    
    
                                                     3
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 10-2994

Filed Date: 2/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014