-
Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-26-2009 Kirtz v. Michael Barkley Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-1881 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Kirtz v. Michael Barkley" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1311. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1311 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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. DLD-172 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09-1881 SHAWN KIRTZ, Appellant v. MICHAEL BARKLEY On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 09-00863) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg Submitted under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or for possible summary action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 30, 2009 Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 26, 2009) OPINION PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Shawn Kirtz appeals from the dismissal of a lawsuit that he filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In March 2009, Kirtz filed a one-paragraph complaint that appears to state that he is the rightful owner of certain property. The complaint provides no additional information regarding the relationship of the defendant to the property or the basis of Kirtz’s cause of action. On March 6, 2009, the District Court dismissed the complaint, stating that it was “legally and factually unintelligible” and that “[r]easonable efforts to decipher the nature of the claims have failed to produce an understanding of the harm alleged or the relief sought.” The District Court’s dismissal order also noted that Kirtz had failed to sign his complaint or include a statement of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having granted Kirtz leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must now determine whether his appeal should be dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Having reviewed Kirtz’s complaint, we agree with the District Court that his claims are legally and factually unintelligible, and that he has failed to present a cognizable cause of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Neitzke,
490 U.S. at327 n.6. Furthermore, Kirtz failed to clarify his claims in his submissions to this Court, and we remain unable to understand the harm alleged or the relief sought. Accordingly, because this appeal presents no arguable legal issue, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). We deny Kirtz’s motion for a jury trial. 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 09-1881
Filed Date: 5/26/2009
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021