Kirtz v. Michael Barkley , 325 F. App'x 51 ( 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    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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. 09-1876
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
    Recommended Citation
    "Kirtz v. Michael Barkley" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1312.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1312
    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    DLD-171                                                       NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 09-1876
    SHAWN KIRTZ,
    Appellant
    v.
    MICHAEL BARKLEY
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 09-01135)
    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 requesting an “emergency audit of [his] account [] [t]o
    see if property in question power of attorney” was given to him. It appears that this cause
    of action is in some way tied to the complaint that Kirtz filed in the District Court in Civil
    Action 09-cv-00863. On March 19, 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 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 motions for a jury trial and for
    an emergency audit of his account.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1876

Citation Numbers: 325 F. App'x 51

Filed Date: 5/26/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023