Ercole A. Mirarchi v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Some Judge/Justice of the United States

DLD-130 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1061
___________
ERCOLE A. MIRARCHI,
Appellant
v.
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
CLARENCE THOMAS, Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
SAMUEL A. ALITO, Jr., Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
ELENA KAGAN, Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
NEIL M. GORSUCH, Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
AMY CONEY BARRETT, Some Judge/Justice of the United States;
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, Some Judge/Justice of the United States
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06922)
District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl
____________________________________
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
May 7, 2026
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 10, 2026)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Ercole Mirarchi appeals pro se and in forma pauperis from the District Court’s
order dismissing his lawsuit as frivolous. We will summarily affirm.
Mirarchi initiated this matter in December 2025 by filing a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charging the Chief
Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court with
treason and related offenses in connection with recent elections in Pennsylvania. The
District Court screened Mirarchi’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and
dismissed it as frivolous and with prejudice because he was on notice from a prior
unsuccessful lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the United States that the federal
criminal statutes he relies upon do not create a private right of action. See ECF Doc. 6
at 4 (citing Mirarchi v. United States Exec. Branch of the Gov’t, No. 23-cv-1549, 2023
WL 5598454, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2023), aff’d, C.A. No. 23-2673, 2023 WL
8179275 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2023) (per curiam)). Mirarchi appeals.
* 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 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s
decision to dismiss Mirarchi’s complaint de novo, see Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366,
373-74 (3d Cir. 2020), and we may summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a
substantial question, see 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Mirarchi’s appeal does not present a substantial question. The District Court
properly dismissed his complaint as frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because “it
depends on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Dooley, 957 F.3d at 374 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Indeed, Mirarchi asserts the same frivolous theory in this case
that caused us to summarily affirm the prejudicial dismissal of his last lawsuit; the only
notable difference between the two is the revised list of defendants he now charges with
treason and other crimes vis-à-vis the administration of Pennsylvania’s elections. See
Mirarchi, 2023 WL 8179275, at *1-2. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --