NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1276
___________
PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR.,
Appellant
v.
F. HARRY SPIESS, JR.; MONTGOMERY COUNTY; MONTGOMERY COUNTY
COURTHOUSE; STEVEN T. O'NEILL, Montgomery County Courthouse; JOE
RANNAEZY, Vincent's Hardwood Flooring; LAUREN MCSORLEY; MICHAEL P.
DIGNAZIO
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-0288)
District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M Rufe
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 1, 2011
Before: JORDAN, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 4, 2011 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Patrick Tillio, proceeding pro se, appeals the decision of the District Court
1
dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In January 2011, Tillio filed a five-page handwritten
complaint. On January 20, 2011, the District Court, sua sponte, dismissed Tillio’s
complaint without prejudice and closed the case statistically, because it was “rambling
and unclear” and therefore failed to meet the pleading standards set forth in Rule 8(a).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This Court
reviews a district court’s dismissal of claims under Rule 8 for abuse of discretion. In re
Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A district court
may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8, but dismissal “is
usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous,
vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”
Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). Although the
complaint Tillio submitted was, as the District Court noted, “rambling and unclear,”
district courts generally must allow plaintiffs leave to amend deficient complaints prior to
dismissal unless doing so would be futile. Simmons, 49 F.3d at 87; cf. Grayson v.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Tillio’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. None of
his submissions to the District Court or to this Court reveals any factual or legal basis for
2
a federal claim. Although a district court should generally give leave to amend prior to
dismissing or making its own determination whether any amendment would be futile,
Simmons, 49 F.3d at 87, we are satisfied—especially in light of Tillio’s unclear appellate
filings—that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his complaint
without leave to amend. Cf. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d
Cir. 2002).
For the foregoing reasons, we shall affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3