JOSEPH LOKUTA, III, individually and d/b/a Lokuta’s Garage Corporation v. LENA ANGELELLA, Chief of Police, Pittston Township Police Department

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 24-1902
_______________
JOSEPH LOKUTA, III, individually and d/b/a Lokuta’s Garage Corporation,
Appellant
v.
LENA ANGELELLA, Chief of Police, Pittston Township Police Department;
DAVID SLEZAK, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Pittston Township;
JOSEPH HAWK, Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Pittston Township;
STEPHEN RINALDI, Member of the Board of Supervisors of Pittston Township;
JOHN BONITA, Administrator of Pittston Township
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 3:23-cv-01617)
District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on December 13, 2024
Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 20, 2024)
_______________
OPINION*
_______________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
Joseph Lokuta’s company tows, impounds, and stores cars in Pittston Township, Penn-
sylvania. Since 2019, Pittston has not called Lokuta’s Garage for those needs. So Lokuta
sued Pittston’s officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his procedural- and substantive-
due-process rights and the Commerce Clause. The District Court dismissed for failure to
state a claim. Lokuta appeals only the dismissal of the two due-process claims. We review
de novo. Vorchheimer v. Phila. Owners Ass’n, 903 F.3d 100, 105 (3d Cir. 2018).
Lokuta does not allege that Pittston infringed a protected property or liberty interest.
He shows no violated property interest because he identifies no statute, regulation, or con-
tract that gives him a protected right to have Pittston choose his services. Piecknick v.
Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1255–59 (3d Cir. 1994). Lokuta stresses that Pennsylvania
licensed and approved his garage to inspect cars. Though those licensures may be property
interests, Pittston has not taken them. Rather, it has simply declined to use his services.
And he does not identify a protected liberty interest because the loss of a single customer
does not “deprive [him] of the right to pursue [his] chosen occupation.” Id. at 1259. So he
has not identified either a pertinent procedural- or substantive-due-process right.
Alternatively, Lokuta says he should at least get to amend his complaint. The District
Court denied leave to amend as futile. In a supplemental-briefing notice, we asked him to
explain what else he would plead if given the chance to amend. He did not respond. Because
letting him amend would be futile, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing this
case.

-- 2 of 2 --