Basil N. Stephanatos v. MARY ANN COHEN, MS., Sued in her official

CLD-224 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4989
________________
BASIL N. STEPHANATOS,
Appellant
v.
MARY ANN COHEN, MS., Sued in her official and individual
capacity; ROBERT W. MOPSICK, Sued in his official and
individual capacity; DAVID VIRSOTSKY, MR., Sued in his
official and individual capacity; MARK W. EVERSON; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-01310)
District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
May 10, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed June 13, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 4 --

1
The Government had also moved for sanctions, which the District Court denied.
2
Basil N. Stephanatos, proceeding pro se, first filed a complaint exceeding 400
pages against the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, a United States
Attorney, United States Tax Court and Internal Revenue Service officials, and a federal
credit union. The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires “a short and plain
statement” of claims and the grounds on which a court has jurisdiction.
Stephanatos filed an amended complaint, ostensibly numbering approximately 150
pages. The Government Defendants moved to dismiss Stephanatos’s amended complaint
under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that jurisdiction did
not attach because Stephanatos’s claims were wholly frivolous. Stephanatos filed a
motion for default judgment, a motion for a temporary restraining order, and a motion to
file additional exhibits.
The District Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss1 and denied
Stephanatos’s motions. Stephanatos moved “for a new trial/change of order,” and
requested leave to submit additional exhibits in support of his otherwise-titled motion for
reconsideration. He also filed another motion for a temporary restraining order. The
District Court denied his motions, and Stephanatos appeals from that order and the earlier
order dismissing his complaint.
We will dismiss Stephanatos’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It

-- 2 of 4 --

3
has no arguable basis in fact or law. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The District Court properly dismissed Stephanatos’s complaint and denied his motions.
The District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain many of Stephanatos’s claims
because they were obviously frivolous and without merit. “[F]ederal courts do not have
power to entertain claims otherwise in their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and
insubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,’ . . . ‘wholly insubstantial,’ . . .
‘obviously frivolous,’ [or] ‘plainly unsubstantial.’” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537-
38 (1974). For instance, Stephanatos’s challenges to the constitutionality of the United
States tax system are frivolous because they are foreclosed by prior court decisions. See
id. at 538.
Furthermore, as the District Court noted, Stephanatos’s amended complaint
violated Rule 8. At first glimpse, it appears that Stephanatos attempted to comply, or, at
least, to shorten his complaint. His amended complaint looks like it tallies a mere 150 or
so pages. However, on closer examination, it is apparent that Stephanatos did not even
try to submit a “short and plain statement” of his claims or the bases for the District
Court’s jurisdiction. He incorporated his original complaint and all its appendices by
reference, see Complaint at 2 n.5, bringing his amendment to approximately 550 pages.
His complaint is not only of an unwieldy length, but it is also largely unintelligible.
While a Rule 8 dismissal is often without prejudice, see Bennett-Nelson v. La. Bd. of
Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 2005) , a dismissal with prejudice was warranted in this
case, cf. In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702-04 (3d Cir. 1996).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to include a short and plain
statement of the jurisdictional grounds under Rule 8 was equally applicable to the moving
and non-moving Defendants. See Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d
Cir. 2003) (holding that a court can and should evaluate its jurisdiction sua sponte); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Also, the District Court properly denied Stephanatos’s motions. Stephanatos did
not present grounds for reconsideration or for a new trial (as the District Court noted in
reference to the latter, Stephanatos had not had a first trial in this case). He was not
entitled to default judgment, temporary restraining orders, or to file even more exhibits
than he had already filed.
In sum, Stephanatos’s appeal is without merit. We will dismiss it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B)(2).

-- 4 of 4 --