Stanley Caterbone v. National Security Agency
698 F. App'x 678
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stanley J. Caterbone filed an amended complaint alleging government-sponsored mind-control, cointelpro harassment, involuntary psychiatric commitments (July 2015, Feb 2016), and other fantastical incidents.
- The District Court dismissed most claims with prejudice as frivolous and deficient, and dismissed some claims without prejudice while giving Caterbone 30 days to file a second amended complaint about certain involuntary commitments and directing Maryland-related claims to the District of Maryland.
- Caterbone failed to file the ordered second amended complaint within the deadline, rendering the without-prejudice dismissals final.
- The District Court also denied Caterbone’s motion for reconsideration.
- Caterbone appealed; the Third Circuit reviewed jurisdiction and whether the complaint had an arguable basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is reviewable despite some claims initially dismissed without prejudice | Caterbone appealed the District Court’s dismissal without filing the second amended complaint | The without-prejudice dismissals became final when Caterbone failed to amend as ordered | Third Circuit had jurisdiction because Caterbone did not timely amend and dismissals became final; appeal considered and dismissed |
| Whether the amended complaint states an arguable claim or is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) | Allegations of mind-control, harassment, and other harms support claims for relief | Complaint contained rambling, vague, and fantastical allegations lacking factual basis | Claims lacked an arguable basis in fact or law and were properly dismissed as frivolous |
| Whether procedural and substantive pleading defects required dismissal | Caterbone argued on the merits and filed additional documents and exhibits | District Court and Third Circuit: complaint violated Rule 8, sued immune entities, relied on criminal statutes without private causes of action, and many claims were time-barred | Dismissal upheld for failure to comply with Rule 8, sovereign/qualified immunity and statute-of-limitations and lack of private right of action grounds |
| Whether the motion for reconsideration and appellate filings warranted relief | Caterbone contended District Court misassigned judge and confused the matter with prior cases; sought to file exhibits and overlength brief | District Court and Third Circuit: motion raised no new law or evidence and repeated conclusory allegations; proposed exhibits irrelevant and filings excessive | Motion for reconsideration denied; overlength brief allowed but exhibits and certain filings denied; appeal dismissed as meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1976) (appellate jurisdiction ordinarily limits review of orders with remaining claims dismissed without prejudice)
- Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848 (3d Cir. 1992) (failure to amend as ordered can render prior without-prejudice dismissals final)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (standard for dismissing frivolous in forma pauperis actions under § 1915)
- Lazardis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard for reconsideration motions)
- Fantone v. Latini, 780 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2015) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading-standards requiring factual plausibility)