Michael Robinson v. City of Shamokin

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 23-1612 __________ MICHAEL ROBINSON, Appellant v. CITY OF SHAMOKIN, PA; NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY; ANTHONY MATULEWICZ, Northumberland County, D.A.; DEGG STARK; LAURA JAMES ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 4-22-cv-00045) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 18, 2023 Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed August 3, 2023) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM

Michael Robinson alleges that his political opponents conspired to have him imprisoned in order to thwart his campaign for county commissioner, violating his constitutional rights. The District Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim, and Robinson now appeals. We will affirm.

I.

In 2019, Robinson announced his candidacy for Northumberland County Commissioner. His amended complaint alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy by various City and County officials to keep him off the campaign trail.1 He alleges that the defendants, among other things: tricked him into missing an August 2019 court hearing, resulting his arrest for failure to appear; subjected him to malicious prosecution for allegedly disrupting an August 2019 Shamokin City Council meeting, causing him to be charged criminally and jailed for several months;2 set his bail unconstitutionally high; and burned his house down. (See ECF No. 17 at 2–9).3

The Magistrate Judge screened Robinson’s complained under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended that the District Court dismiss Robinson’s complaint for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.4 (ECF No. 23 at 5). The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Robinson not be given leave to amend, reasoning that the facts alleged in the complaint, the exhibits filed with it, and Robinson’s extensive history of frivolous litigation would make any amendment futile. (Id. at 4). Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Robinson’s motion for unspecified injunctive relief be denied as moot. (Id. at 5).

After reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and Robinson’s objections to it, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report in its entirety, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and denied Robinson’s motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 26). Robinson appeals.5 II.

We decline to reach the merits of Robinson’s case because his appeal brief fails to meaningfully present any issues to us for review. As a pro se appellant, Robinson is afforded liberal construction of his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–

21 (1972). But the failure to raise an issue in an opening brief, even by pro se parties, renders it forfeited. See Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002).

This is especially so for experienced pro se litigants like Robinson, who is no stranger to this Court or to the District Court. 6 See Capogrosso v. The Supreme Ct. of New Jersey, 588 F.3d 180, 184 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009) (limiting review to only those issues raised in litigant’s appeal brief because appellant was an experienced pro se litigant).

To properly present an issue to the Court for review, a litigant’s opening brief must include, among other things: a statement of the issue, the legal argument explaining why the district court decided the issue incorrectly, and the facts and legal authorities supporting that argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 28; L.R. App. P. 28.0. Robinson’s brief, by contrast, is essentially just a restatement of his amended complaint. He asserts in conclusory fashion that his complaint states a claim, but he presents no facts, legal authorities, or argument explaining why the District Court’s contrary view was erroneous. Therefore, we conclude that Robinson has forfeited review of this and all other issues on appeal. See Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care Inc., 62 F.4th 755, 763

(3d Cir. 2023) (appellant whose brief made only passing reference to an issue forfeited review of that issue).

IV. Conclusion For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellant’s outstanding motions are denied.