Owen Britton Troxelle v. United States of America

BLD-102 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3773
___________
OWEN BRITTON TROXELLE,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-03442)
District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant
to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 12, 2009
Before: McKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 30, 2009)
__________
OPINION
__________
PER CURIAM
Owen Britton Troxelle filed a pro se complaint in the District of Columbia against
the United States of America. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in June 2008. On July 25, 2008, the District Court dismissed the action as

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the District Court expressly closed the action and barred any further1
pleadings from Troxelle, Troxelle cannot cure the defect in his complaint and its
dismissal is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950,
951-52 (3d cir. 1976) (per curiam).
2
legally and factually unintelligible, noting that despite reasonable efforts to discern the
nature of Troxelle’s claims the court was unable to understand the harm alleged or the
relief sought. Troxelle filed a motion for “Correction of Records and Proper Situs of
Case” and a motion for reconsideration, both of which the court denied. In its order
denying reconsideration, the District Court noted that the case was closed and that it
would consider no further pleadings from Troxelle. Troxelle appealed and the United1
States moved for summary affirmance of the District Court’s order. For the following
reasons, we will affirm.
Although not a model of clarity, Troxelle’s complaint is factually intelligible. He
brings suit under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Trading with the
Enemy Act of 1917, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 9, 10. The basis of his claim appears to be that
“liability” and involuntary servitude were imposed upon him when his parents requested a
birth certificate and a social security number for him and that continued use of these
identifying documents by state and federal agencies is fraudulent. Troxelle also asserts
that he was “falsely registered directly or indirectly” under the Trading with the Enemy
Act. All of these actions allegedly violate his property rights. He seeks millions of
dollars in damages, as well as injunctive relief requiring various federal and state entities

-- 2 of 3 --

Troxelle filed a “Motion for a Protective Order” and a “Motion to Move This2
Court for Reinstatement of Case” in which he notified this Court of missing documents
related to his complaint and provided those documents. We construe these motions as
responses to Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance and note that we have reviewed
the filings.
3
to correct their records and to cease violating the law. In support of his complaint,
Troxelle submitted numerous exhibits, including correspondence with the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, the Pennsylvania Division of Vital Records, and the
United States Attorney General’s Office in which he makes complaints, requests a
criminal investigation, and submits invoices for damages due for alleged improper
actions.
Although we can understand what is presented in the complaint, we agree with the
District Court that the complaint is legally unintelligible in that it lacks an arguable basis
in law or cognizable cause of action. Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Thus, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance and deny
Troxelle’s motions for a protective order and for reinstatement of the case.2

-- 3 of 3 --