Annur Bey v. City of Philadelphia , 584 F. App'x 35 ( 2014 )

CLD-036 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3173
___________
ANNUR HASHIM BEY,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; THE JURY COMMISSION;
DANIEL RENDIEN, JURY COMMISSION;
JUANITA KIDD STOUT, TITLE UNKNOWN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-14-cv-03411)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 14, 2014
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 25, 2014 )
_________
OPINION*
_________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Annur Hashim Bey, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the
District Court’s order dismissing his claim with prejudice. For the reasons set forth
below, we will summarily affirm.
I.
In May 2014, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas summoned Bey for jury
duty. Bey replied with a letter requesting an exemption based on his religious beliefs and
political views, relying on the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The Jury
Selection Commission denied his request and noted that he could raise his objections
when he appeared for jury duty. The Jury Selection Commission also warned Bey that
“[f]ailure to obey this summons is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.”
On June 9, 2014, the day before his scheduled jury service, Bey filed this lawsuit,
alleging that the defendants violated his free exercise rights. Bey sought compensation
and permanent removal from the jury selection process. After granting Bey’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis, the District Court screened his complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. The District Court then dismissed the case because Bey’s claim was
invalid under current law and could not be cured by amendment. Bey timely appealed.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review of the District
Court’s dismissal order is plenary. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
2
We will summarily affirm the District Court’s dismissal order because this appeal does
not present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
The District Court held that Bey’s free exercise claim failed under Employment
Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). We agree. Bey offers no basis to conclude
that Pennsylvania’s jury service laws are anything but “valid and neutral law[s] of
general applicability” rationally related to a legitimate government objective. Id.; see
also Combs v. Homer-Ctr. Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231, 241-43 (3d Cir. 2008). Rather,
Bey’s claim is precisely the kind of “religious exemption[] from civic obligations”
rejected in Employment Division v. Smith. 494 U.S. at 888-89. Because Bey’s claim is
legally invalid under Supreme Court precedent, the District Court correctly concluded
that amendment would be futile. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., 594 F.3d
238, 243 (3d Cir. 2010) (“Futility means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Therefore, the District Court did not err in dismissing Bey’s complaint without leave to
amend. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
III.
There being no substantial question presented on appeal, we will summarily
affirm.
3