GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA, And the People of the Philadelphia Religious Community Center v. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RESTRICT OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, Primarily to Intimidate…

DPS-34 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3863
________________________
GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA,
And the People of the
Philadelphia Religious
Community Center, et al,
Appellant
v.
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RESTRICT OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS,
Primarily to Intimidate Rather Than Religious Purposes
Maintenance on Courthouse Grounds of Illuminated Granite
Monolith On Which "Ten Commandments" Were Inscribed Together
With Other Symbols, et al
______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 05-cv-3504)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Possible Summary
Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 27, 2005
Before: ROTH, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed : December 8, 2005)
OPINION
_______________________

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM
Gbeke Michael Awala, who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Detention
Center in Philadelphia, appeals pro se from the order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint.
The District Court dismissed Awala’s case for failure either to pay the filing fee or
to file a motion seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Ordinarily, such a dismissal is entered without prejudice to refiling upon
amendment and would, therefore, be considered “non-final and non-appealable.” See
Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). In this case, however,
the District Court’s order did not allow Awala to cure the defect in his filing, and he was
unable to proceed. Therefore, the District Court’s order terminated the proceedings and is
appealable. See Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803 (3d Cir. 2003). As Awala’s notice
of appeal was timely, we, consequently, have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. Awala has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
At the outset, our review of the record indicates that Awala did, apparently, submit
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court. This motion was typed on
the reverse side of the Certificate of Service, which was appended to the last page of
Awala’s 19-page pleading. Given its obscure location, it is understandable that this
document was overlooked by the District Court Clerk. We need not examine this clerical
error further, however, as we must dismiss Awala’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 2 of 4 --

Awala’s pleading in the District Court, which he titled, “Motion in opposition
towards the defendants habitual offenses involving individual rights restriction against
establishment of religion despite fact that religious symbol were admissible,” is difficult
to comprehend, much less classify. It appears that Awala may have intended to file a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a
complaint must sufficiently allege a deprivation of a right secured by the constitution.
See Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). While we must accept as true all of
the factual allegations in the complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from them, see id., we note that Awala’s pleading does not contain any allegations
or even identify the defendants. Awala’s pleading fails to state any type of claim, at least
in the traditional sense, much less a claim which shows “that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As a result, Awala’s complaint failed to state a claim
for which relief can be granted, and we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Alternatively, Awala’s appeal must be dismissed as “frivolous,” see
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as his attempt to seek relief lacks an arguable basis in fact or law. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A recurring theme in Awala’s pleading is
his request that the District Court overturn the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
McCreary County, Ky. v. ACLU, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 2740-41 (2005), which held that two
courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments violated the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment. Awala seeks, among other things, to have all of the religious

-- 3 of 4 --

monuments which have been removed from courthouses “nationwide” replaced. The
District Court clearly does not have the authority to overturn any decision by the United
States Supreme Court. See, e.g., NAACP v. Med. Ctr., Inc., 657 F.2d 1322, 1330 (3d
Cir. 1981). For that matter, Awala’s intense disappointment with McCreary’s outcome is
insufficient to satisfy the standing requirement that a plaintiff show “injury in fact.” See
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 485-87 (1982).
For the foregoing reasons, Awala’s appeal will be dismissed.

-- 4 of 4 --