Opinion
22-2730
06-16-2023
AARON J. BRESSI, Appellant v. TRACY MCCLOUD; BRITTANY DUKE; RONALD MCCLAY; MATTHEW NARCAVAGE; DANIEL SHOOP; JILL HENRICH; TERRY KECHEM; PATROLMAN ADAMS; CHRISTOPHER LAPOTSKY; JOHN GEMBIC; OFFICE CLERKS, Sunbury District Magistrate; MICHAEL P. TOOMEY; MICHAEL SEWARD; DEGG STARK; JILL FRY; CHARLES SAYLOR; PAIGE ROSINI; WARDEN SNYDER COUNTY PRISON; OFFICE CLERKS, Snyder County Prison; EDWARD GRECO; MICHAEL SUIDERS; JAMES BEST; VINCE ROVITO; RACHAEL GLASSO; AMY STOAK; KIMBERLY BICKERT; CATHY DUZICK; MICHAEL FANTAGROSSE; JENNIFER FANTAGROSSE; RICHARD STIENHEART; GINGER STIENHEART; JEFFREY LEACH; DENISE CARNUCCIO; JEFFREY LONG; TYLER MUMMY; KIMBERLY SEDDON; CHASTITY SEDDON; WARDEN BRUCE KOVACH; DEPUTY WARDEN JAMES SMINK; and COUNSELOR SAMUEL KRANZEL
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 13, 2023
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 4:18-cv-01345) District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann
Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
OPINION [*]
PER CURIAM.
Proceeding pro se, Aaron Bressi filed a civil rights action against dozens of people. The District Court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. We affirmed. See Bressi v. McCloud, C.A. Nos. 20-1077 &20-1758, 2021 WL 5054351, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2021) (per curiam).
Months later, Bressi twice asked the District Court to "refile" his case. The District Court entered a pair of orders denying relief, the second of which stated that Bressi had "failed to provide any basis to reopen this case" and that "[t]he Court will not entertain any further motions to 'refile' in this matter." This timely appeal of the second order followed.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Bressi's opening brief merely re-argues the merits of his prior appeal in the underlying litigation, and at times mistakenly references a decision of this Court resolving one of his appeals in separate litigation. In short, nowhere in the brief does Bressi identify a valid basis to disturb the order of the District Court that is the subject of this appeal. Accordingly, we will affirm.
Bressi's post-briefing motion requesting that the Court accept a document from his separate, pending habeas proceeding as "evidence towards [this] case" is denied.
[*] This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.