Paul E. Carpenter v. Pennsylvania State University

ALD-53 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-3600
________________
PAUL E. CARPENTER,
Appellant,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; THE APARTMENT STORE; WALK’S
SERVICE CENTER & AUTO BODY; ATLAS REALTY MGMT. CO., INC.; STATE
COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CENTRE DAILY TIMES; CENTRE
COUNTY BOARD OF ARBITRATION; CENTRE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS; PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION; THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA; UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION; THE SHANER HOTEL GROUP; THE AMERICAN EDUCATION
SERVICES
_________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-01378 )
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
November 22, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: December 5, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Paul Carpenter, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals an

-- 1 of 3 --

2
order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
dismissing his complaint. For the following reasons, we conclude his appeal is meritless
and we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Carpenter filed a complaint in the District Court containing a litany of prolix
allegations detailing his interactions with the thirteen defendants named in his suit.
Carpenter also submitted a 197-page appendix. The District Court identified numerous
defects in the complaint, including non-compliance with the notice pleading requirements
of FED . R. CIV . P. 8, failure to state proper grounds for joinder of multiple defendants
under FED . R. CIV . P. 20(a), assertion of claims under federal statutes that do not provide
a private right of action, and inclusion of state law claims without asserting a basis for
diversity jurisdiction. The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and
gave Carpenter twenty days to file an amended complaint. Carpenter instead filed a
notice of appeal of the order, along with a memorandum expressing his desire to stand on
his original complaint. We therefore have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See
Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976).
We agree with the District Court’s assessment of Carpenter’s complaint.
Carpenter has not provided the defendants with fair notice as to the nature of his federal
claims, nor has he set forth sufficient grounds for a federal court to exercise diversity
jurisdiction over any state law causes of action that could be discerned from the
complaint. We conclude the appeal lacks an arguable basis in law or fact and thus we
will dismiss it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

-- 2 of 3 --

(1989).
3

-- 3 of 3 --