Brooke A. Keefer v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235-36 3d cir. 2004

1
BLD-224 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4094
________________
BROOKE A. KEEFER,
Appellant
vs.
SOMERSET D.A. OFFICE; SOMERSET DETECTIVE JASON HUNTER; SOMERSET
CHILD SERVICES; DOMESTIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT; SOMERSET
PROBATION; WILBURT BEACHY; SOMERSET BOROUGH POLICE; COURTS;
SOMERSET SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00166J)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action
Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 10, 2007
BEFORE: McKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed June 4, 2007)
___________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM.
Brooke Keefer, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s

-- 1 of 3 --

2
dismissal of his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court correctly ruled that
Keefer’s complaint does not state a claim in its current version. However, the complaint
was erroneously dismissed with prejudice and we conclude that Keefer should have the
opportunity to amend. Accordingly, pursuant to L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, we will
summarily vacate the District Court’s memorandum order entered August 22, 2006, and
remand for further proceedings.
On July 24, 2006, Keefer filed a document with the District Court which
explains that he would like to commence a “discrimination/entrapment suit” but that he
does not understand how to fill out the forms sent to him by the District Court. The
document then alleges that throughout the past 28 years several Somerset Borough
officials and departments, among others, discriminated against and entrapped Keefer and
his family. The allegations, which are set forth in nine numbered paragraphs, are vague
and conclusory at best.
Keefer sought to proceed in forma pauperis, and the District Court granted
his motion, but simultaneously dismissed his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The Court said that “[w]hile the allegations may be ‘real’ to plaintiff, a
reasonable person would find them fanciful and wholly without any factual basis. No
amount of repleading could save them from being frivolous.”
In our view, the complaint is not detailed enough to permit a court to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
appraise the allegations’ viability. Accordingly, rather than dismissing the complaint with
prejudice, we believe that it should have been without prejudice, thus allowing Keefer the
opportunity to amend his complaint. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3d cir.
2004); Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d
Cir. 2007) (“leave to amend must be granted sua sponte before dismissing” civil rights
complaints).
Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s August 22, 2006
memorandum order and remand this matter for further proceedings.

-- 3 of 3 --