Scarnati v. Social Security Administration of Philadelphia PA Office , 532 F. App'x 103 ( 2013 )

CLD-354 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2487
___________
GLORIA SCARNATI,
Appellant
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OF PHILADELPHIA PA OFFICE, et al.
and its DIRECTOR, et al, individually; ELAINE GARRISON DANIELS, et al,
individually; LAURIE WATKINS, et al, individually; MCKEESPORT SOCIAL
SECURITY OFFICE, et al; CHRIS TETZLAFF, et al, individually; MT. LEBANON
SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, et al; MRS. SWICK, et al, individually; ALAN
BELINSKY, et al, individually
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civil No. 2-13-cv-00575)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
July 25, 2013
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 14, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro Se Appellant Gloria Scarnati, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the
District Court’s dismissal of her complaint filed pursuant to a litany of federal and state
statutes, including the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Pennsylvania Whistleblowers
Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We will dismiss the appeal as legally frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
I.
In March 2013, Scarnati filed a complaint against the Social Security
Administration of Philadelphia, its Director, the McKeesport Social Security office, the
Mount Lebanon Social Security office, and various employees of those offices. Scarnati
is not alleging any loss of her Social Security Benefits. Instead, Scarnati contends that
over the last ten years she has been “intimidated, harassed, libeled, slandered[,]
continuously victimized, mentally tormented and deliberately tortured by the actions of
the defendant employees…through mailings and threatened with the loss of [benefits]”
resulting in violations of her constitutional rights. Compl., dkt #1, p. 4. The complaint
specifies three claims: (1) retaliation against the plaintiff for being a whistleblower, in
violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment; (2) lack of enforcement of the
Americans with Disabilities Act in Pennsylvania; and (3) retaliation against the plaintiff’s
exercise of her First Amendment rights. Scarnati seeks injunctive, declaratory,
compensatory and punitive relief.
2
The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as legally frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denied her subsequent motion for
reconsideration and for extension of time to appeal. This timely appeal followed.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and “[o]ur review of a district
court decision dismissing a complaint as frivolous is plenary.” Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d
192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990).
III.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires us to dismiss an appeal at any time if it
is frivolous or malicious. An appeal is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Upon review of the record, we agree with the District Court that Scarnati’s claims
are frivolous. Scarnati’s complaint is replete with abrupt legal conclusion and jumbled
factual allegations. Almost each paragraph of her complaint includes an unsupported
legal conclusion based on a different state or federal law. However, Scarnati specifically
articulated three counts under separate headings in an attempt to concisely show her
constitutional rights have been violated.
Scarnati claims that the Appellees mailed her threatening letters and falsified her
Social Security paperwork to retaliate against her for being a whistleblower thereby
violating of her First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. This claim is
indisputably meritless. Scarnati has made no allegation that she is, or has been,
3
employed by the Social Security Administration, or employed at all for that matter, in the
last ten years during which the alleged retaliation occurred. Scarnati is therefore not a
current or former employee and is not a whistleblower under the Federal or the
Pennsylvania Whistleblowers Acts. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(B); 43 P.S. § 1422.
In her second claim Scarnati alleges that the Americans with Disabilities Act is not
being enforced in Pennsylvania, but she provided no factual allegations to support her
claim.
Scarnati’s third claim is captioned “First Amendment Retaliation” but quickly
descends into a description of how the Appellees, through criminal means, are conspiring
to remove her from the Social Security rolls. Scarnati claims that to accomplish their
ends, Appellees have abused their office, sent threatening letters by mail, illegally opened
her mail, invented untrue statements about her, slandered her, falsified her records and
treated her differently from others on Social Security. Scarnati also claims that Appellees
are trying to kill her by inducing a stroke and that Pennsylvania is trying to kill her for
being a whistleblower. As a result of this conspiracy, Scarnati claims her First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated and that Appellees are also liable under
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
This Court understands and appreciates that Scarnati was displeased, even
shocked, by the letters she received from Appellees, which she interpreted as a threat to
her only source of income. However, she has pled no facts that would elevate her
4
accusations above the conclusory and speculative. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 1
IV.
Thus finding that Scarnati’s complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact,
we will dismiss her appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
1
As a general rule, “plaintiffs whose complaints fail to state a cause of action are entitled
to amend their complaint unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.” Grayson v.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002). We agree with the District
Court that granting Scarnati leave to amend her complaint would be futile.
5