Shawn Kirtz v. MICHAEL BARKLEY On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern…

DLD-172 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-1881
SHAWN KIRTZ,
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL BARKLEY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-00863)
District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
Submitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or for possible summary action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 30, 2009
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 26, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Shawn Kirtz appeals from the dismissal of a lawsuit that he filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In March 2009, Kirtz
filed a one-paragraph complaint that appears to state that he is the rightful owner of

-- 1 of 2 --

2
certain property. The complaint provides no additional information regarding the
relationship of the defendant to the property or the basis of Kirtz’s cause of action. On
March 6, 2009, the District Court dismissed the complaint, stating that it was “legally and
factually unintelligible” and that “[r]easonable efforts to decipher the nature of the claims
have failed to produce an understanding of the harm alleged or the relief sought.” The
District Court’s dismissal order also noted that Kirtz had failed to sign his complaint or
include a statement of jurisdiction.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having granted Kirtz leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we must now determine whether his appeal should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Having reviewed Kirtz’s complaint, we agree with the District Court that his claims are
legally and factually unintelligible, and that he has failed to present a cognizable cause of
action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 n.6. Furthermore, Kirtz failed to
clarify his claims in his submissions to this Court, and we remain unable to understand
the harm alleged or the relief sought.
Accordingly, because this appeal presents no arguable legal issue, we will dismiss
it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). We deny Kirtz’s motion for a jury trial.

-- 2 of 2 --