Leo Schweitzer, III v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2012)
Leo Schweitzer, III v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2012)
Leo Schweitzer, III v. United States, 3rd Cir. (2012)
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-3909
___________
LEO F. SCHWEITZER, III,
Appellant
v.
retained counsel, judges, court employees, government witnesses, and virtually everyone
else involved in his criminal proceedings and sentences. In general terms, Schweitzer
alleges that he is innocent and that defendants have conspired to wrongly convict him and
deprive him of various constitutional rights in connection with his criminal proceedings,
collateral challenges, and the service of his sentences. Schweitzer later filed a very
similar complaint against many of the same defendants in a different District Court. That
court dismissed the complaint, and we dismissed his resultant appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). See Schweitzer, 354 F. Appx at 602.
Meanwhile, the defendants filed motions to dismiss Schweitzers complaint in the
present action as well. The District Court granted those motions in a series of rulings.
By order entered March 29, 2011, it dismissed the complaint as to two law firms and one
lawyer. By order entered March 30, 2011, it dismissed the complaint as to another law
firm and lawyer. By order entered April 13, 2011, it dismissed the complaint as to the
state defendants. Finally, by order entered September 22, 2011, it dismissed the
complaint as to the federal defendants.
Schweitzer appeals. He mentions only the District Courts September 22 order in
his notice of appeal, but even if we liberally construed it to include the District Courts
prior orders our ruling would be the same. Because we have granted Schweitzer leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we must screen this appeal to determine whether it is
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appeal is frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Schweitzers appeal lacks any such basis. The District Court thoroughly explained
3
its reasons for dismissing the complaint against each defendant, and those reasons
included collateral estoppel on the basis of our previous rulings, statutes of limitations,
prosecutorial and judicial immunity, the favorable termination requirement of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and failure to state a claim on numerous other grounds.
The District Court also properly explained why leave to amend would be futile. We have
carefully reviewed Schweitzers complaint and the District Courts opinions. We discern
no arguable basis to question the District Courts rulings, for the reasons the District
Court already has thoroughly and adequately explained. Schweitzers submission in
support of his appeal, the first sentence of which urges us to [f]orget the criminal
judgments, states no such basis. For these reasons, we will dismiss this appeal.