Chatman v. Allegheny , 278 F. App'x 163 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-22-2008
Chatman v. Allegheny
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1964
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Chatman v. Allegheny" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1154.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1154
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-183 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-1964
___________
EUGENE E. CHATMAN,
Appellant
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA;
RSI PROPERTY MANAGEMENT;
STEVEN BASKIN; KAREN BASKIN;
JAMES BUTLER; JUDITH BUTLER; DAVID K. RUDOV
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-00277)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
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
April 24, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 22, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Eugene Chatman, representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Chatman appealed, and we dismissed his appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), too. Chatman then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari,
but his petition was denied.
Chatman recently returned to the District Court and filed a “motion for leave to file
demand for jury trial.” Through his motion, Chatman was apparently trying to revive the
claims he presented in his § 1983 complaint, although he also provided more specific
information about how a state court allegedly wronged him by denying his demand for a
jury trial. The District Court denied his motion. Chatman appeals in forma pauperis. In
his notice of appeal, he explains that he wanted a jury trial in state court and in his
District Court case, and he states that the District Court erred in previously dismissing his
complaint.
We have jurisdiction over Chatman’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Isidor
Paiewonsky Assocs., Inc. v. Sharp Properties, Inc., 998 F.2d 145, 151 (3d Cir. 1993).
However, we must dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it has no
arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The
District Court long ago dismissed Chatman’s complaint, we affirmed the order of
dismissal, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Chatman was not entitled to a jury
trial or other relief in his closed case.