Lester Jon Ruston v. D. Scott Dodrill, sued in his individual

AMENDED BLD-150 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3992
___________
LESTER JON RUSTON,
Appellant
v.
D. SCOTT DODRILL,
sued in his individual and official capacity
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-03929)
District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel
____________________________________
Submitted for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 18, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 20, 2010)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Lester Jon Ruston, is currently a civil detainee at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Seagoville, Texas. Ruston filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to Bivens v. Six

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In that complaint, Ruston
claimed that D. Scott Dodrill, the Assistant Director Correctional Programs Division of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, violated several of his constitutional rights. More
specifically, Ruston alleged that defendant Dodrill entered into conspiracies with
numerous individuals to deprive him of, inter alia, his rights under the First, Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendments. In an Order entered on September 30, 2009, the District
Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety after concluding that it was frivolous on its
face. This timely appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
exercise plenary review. See Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003). Even
affording Ruston the liberal construction due a pro se litigant under Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1979), we do not hesitate to conclude that the District Court committed no
error in dismissing his complaint. A court need not credit as true factual allegations that
are “fantastic” or “irrational and wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
33 (1992). While taken individually, some of Ruston’s basic claims may not appear
fantastic, the factual contentions underlying those allegations are clearly baseless when
considering the details and expansiveness of the alleged conspiracies. See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Accordingly, because the District Court properly dismissed Ruston’s complaint
and no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
order of dismissal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Appellant’s various
motions are denied.

-- 3 of 3 --