Sal Algieri v. Judge Thomas Vanaskie

ALD-158 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4238
________________
SAL ALGIERI,
Appellant
v.
JUDGE THOMAS VANASKIE
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-01814)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 15, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: March 21, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Sal Algieri, a resident of Peckville, Pennsylvania, appeals from the district court’s
order, entered on September 19, 2006, dismissing his complaint with prejudice as legally

-- 1 of 3 --

1 This court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-2-
and factually frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the following reasons, we
will likewise dismiss Algieri’s appeal. 1 See id.
A specific account of the facts underlying Algieri’s allegations—to the extent such
facts can be divined from his complaint—is unnecessary. Put simply, Algieri alleged
impropriety on the part of Judge Thomas Vanaskie in connection with an alleged visit
paid to Algieri’s home by two U.S. Marshals. Our review shows that it is beyond
question that Algieri’s claims “rely on an ‘indisputably meritless legal theory’ or a
‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.” Mitchell v. Horn, 318
F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)).
Thus, the district court’s order dismissing the complaint was plainly correct. We also
note, as evidenced by a cadre of exhibits attached to Algiere’s complaint, that the
complaint under review is just one in a series of similar ad hominem attacks directed at
judges who fail to rule in Algieri’s favor in various cases in which he is, or has been,
involved. We will not facilitate the continuation of such conduct in this court. Given the
above discussion, we agree with the district court that there was no need to provide
Algieri an opportunity to further amend his complaint because any amendment would
have ultimately proven futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108
(3d Cir. 2002) (noting that amendment “must be permitted . . . unless it would be
inequitable or futile”).

-- 2 of 3 --

Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3

-- 3 of 3 --