Steven Paul Fleming v. Lackawanna County Courthouse

BLD-325 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2957
___________
STEVEN PAUL FLEMING,
Appellant
v.
LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURTHOUSE; LACKAWANNA COUNTY
GOVERNMENT; SENIOR JUDGE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00682)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
____________________________________
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
September 24, 2009
Before: MCKEE, FISHER AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 9, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Steven Paul Fleming, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s
dismissal of his amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the

-- 1 of 3 --

2
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Fleming filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on April 14, 2009. The District Court construed it as seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and issued an order explaining the defects in Fleming’s
complaint, setting out the information required to state a claim under § 1983, and ordering
Fleming to amend his complaint to comply with those requirements. Fleming filed an
amended complaint, the substance of which is described in great detail in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report & Recommendation. The amended complaint named Lackawanna
County Courthouse and Lackawanna County as the defendants. As the Magistrate Judge
explained, Fleming failed to specify any conduct, wrongful or otherwise, of any properly
named defendant. A fair reading of Fleming’s complaint does not indicate what specific
wrongs he seeks to remedy or who committed them. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Fleming not be permitted to amend his complaint for a second time, as
it appeared that any such amendment would be futile. By order entered June 9, 2009, the
District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation and dismissed
the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because
Appellant has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, we
review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An
appeal must be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). For all of the reasons given by the
Magistrate Judge, we agree that Fleming failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted and, accordingly, conclude that this appeal must be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 3 of 3 --