Kirtz v. Michael Barkley ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            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    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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    DLD-172                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. at
    327 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