Jeffrey D. Hill v. SCOTT PERRY On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 22-2465
____________
JEFFREY D. HILL,
Appellant
v.
SCOTT PERRY
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 4-22-cv-00560)
District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
_____________
No. 22-2466
_____________
JEFFREY D. HILL,
Appellant
v.
RICK SACCONE
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 4-22-cv-00689)
District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

-- 1 of 3 --

2
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 21, 2023
Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGARARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 10, 2023)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, pro se appellant Jeffrey Hill challenges orders
dismissing his civil actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the
following reasons, we will affirm.
In 2022, Hill filed three similar actions seeking to remove political candidates
from the ballot and to bar them from holding office based on their alleged involvement in
the events that transpired at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The actions concerned
Doug Mastriano, then a candidate for Pennsylvania Governor; Rick Saccone, then a
candidate for Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor; and Scott Perry, then a candidate for
United States Congress. Approving and adopting a Magistrate Judge’s reports and
recommendations, the District Court dismissed the actions. Hill appealed in each case.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We recently affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the action concerning Mastriano.
See Hill v. Mastriano, No. 22-2464, 2022 WL 16707073 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2022).
Since Hill’s claims in each case are materially identical, our analysis from
Mastriano applies with full force here, with one exception. Because the 2022 election has
already occurred, we are now unable to grant one form of relief that Hill requested—to
remove the candidates from the ballot. We therefore dismiss the appeals in part. See
generally Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996).
To the extent Hill requested prospective relief (including removing Perry from
office and permanently disqualifying him or Saccone from holding office in the future),
we will affirm the District Court’s judgments for the reasons we provided in Mastriano.
That is, Hill lacks standing to pursue a claim under the “Disqualification Clause” of the
Fourteenth Amendment because he failed to allege a particularized injury. See
Mastriano, 2022 WL 16707073, at *1. The District Court also lacked jurisdiction to
consider Hill’s writ of quo warranto and, “[w]ithout an independent basis for subject
matter jurisdiction, the District Court could not issue mandamus relief.” Id. at *2.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeals in part and otherwise affirm the District
Court’s judgments.

-- 3 of 3 --