Mason L. Wilson v. the Honorable John P. Murtha

BLD-115 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1687
___________
MASON L. WILSON,
Appellant
v.
THE HONORABLE JOHN P. MURTHA; JAMES P. TERRY;
MARIBETH CULLY; GEORGE TARASOVIC; ALTHEA V. JEFFERS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-00018)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
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
February 26, 2009
Before: McKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 26, 2009)
__________
OPINION
__________
PER CURIAM
On January 25, 2008, Mason L. Wilson filed this pro se action in the Western
District of Pennsylvania against Congressman John Patrick Murtha, Jr., several officials

-- 1 of 3 --

The District Court’s decision to dismiss without prejudice does not hinder our1
exercise of jurisdiction. See Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995)
(dismissals without prejudice pursuant to § 1915 are appealable).
2
within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“the VA”), and Althea V.
Jeffers, an official of the Johnstown Housing Authority, alleging violations of his civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986. Five days later, the District Court denied
IFP status because Wilson “fail[ed] to state a claim on which relief may be granted” under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and dismissed the complaint, finding it “to be the antithesis of the
short and plain statement required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and, moreover, to be so
incomprehensible . . . that the Court cannot determine what [Wilson] has attempted to
plead.”1
Wilson filed a timely notice of appeal, and then inexplicably filed an identical
complaint in the District Court on March 17, 2008, again moving to proceed IFP. One
day later, the District Court denied IFP status because Wilson “fail[ed] to state a claim on
which relief may be granted,” and it dismissed his complaint without prejudice. Wilson
appealed, and we affirmed in an unpublished decision. See Wilson v. Murtha,
No. 08-2243, 2008 WL 5237255 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2008) (“Wilson II”). We turn now to
the instant appeal.
As in Wilson II, we first take this opportunity to remind the District Court that IFP
determinations are to be made solely on the basis of indigence, without regard to the
potential merit of a complaint. See Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not go so far as to characterize Wilson’s complaint as “incomprehensible.”2
Though inartful, a little sifting reveals that the complaint advances two claims, which we
described in Wilson II as follows: “One claim concerns Murtha’s and the VA’s alleged
failure to acquire for Wilson a certified copy of his Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”)
decision from August 3, 2004. The other claim accuses Jeffers of conspiring with the VA
to have Wilson and his family evicted from their residence in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.”
2008 WL 5237255, at *1.
3
Cir. 1995); Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). In any event, and
given that the Wilson’s filings are identical to those we found legally insufficient to state
a claim in Wilson II, we again conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that
Wilson’s complaint lacked an arguable basis in law. We are also satisfied that it would2
have been an exercise in futility for the District Court to have permitted Wilson to amend
his complaint. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint for
failure to state a claim. In light of our disposition, Wilson’s pending motions for default
judgment and sanctions are denied.

-- 3 of 3 --