and 06-5171 (Consolidated) SHERRELL L. CRAWLEY-GNALETASSI v. Phila. Direct Inquirer

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NOs. 06-5138 and 06-5171 (Consolidated)
________________
SHERRELL L. CRAWLEY-GNALETASSI,
Appellant
v.
PHILA. DIRECT INQUIRER
Appellee in No. 06-5138
SHERRELL L. CRAWLEY-GNALETASSI,
Appellant
v.
HEADLINE PROMOTIONS
Appellee in No. 06-5171
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. Nos. 06-cv-04033 and 06-cv-04031)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 2, 2007
BEFORE: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and COWEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed October 9, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellant, Sherrell Crawley-Gnaletassi, proceeding pro se, appeals from the
District Court’s orders dismissing her two separately filed complaints. For the reasons
that follow, we will affirm.
On September 11, 2006, Appellant filed two separate complaints in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The first complaint was
docketed at E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-04031 and named Headline Promotions as the
defendant. The second complaint was docketed at E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-04033 and
named Philadelphia Direct Inquirer as the defendant. Upon review of the two complaints,
the District Court concluded that Appellant’s complaint, in both actions, failed to provide
a short and plain statement of the claims showing she was entitled to relief. The District
Court granted Appellant leave to file an amended complaint in both cases within thirty
(30) days in order to remedy the deficiencies. Appellant filed a separate amended
complaint in each action within the specified time period. The District Court concluded
that the amended complaints failed to remedy the deficiencies of the original complaints
and granted the Appellant on additional opportunity to cure the defects by filing a second
amended complaint in both cases. Appellant, in both actions, filed a document titled
“motion” as her second amended complaint. The District Court concluded that neither of
the second amended complaints provided a short and plain statement of the claims
showing that Appellant was entitled to relief, and dismissed the two complaints without
prejudice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each case. We consolidated the appeals
for our consideration.

-- 2 of 3 --

We have jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review a district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 8 for abuse of
discretion. In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996).
Rule 8(a)(1) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the
plaintiff’s claims. Appellant’s original complaints and amended complaints in both
actions fail to comply with this requirement. Upon review of the multiple complaints that
Appellant has submitted, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Appellant’s
complaints fail to aver sufficient facts to enable Appellees to appropriately investigate
and respond. See Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 175 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating “[n]otice
pleading requires a plaintiff to provide the opponent with fair notice of a claim and the
grounds on which that claim is based”). Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion, in either action, in dismissing Appellant’s amended complaints without
prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of the District Court.
3

-- 3 of 3 --