Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-12-2005
Hill v. Nassberg
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4570
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Hill v. Nassberg" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1202.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1202
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-191 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4570
________________
JEFFREY D. HILL,
Appellant
v.
RICHARD NASSBERG, County Commissioner; REBECCA BURKE,
County Commissioner; ERNEST LARSON, County Commissioner;
JAMES CARPENTER, Chief Assessor; CENTURY 21 APPRAISALS OF
MIDDLETOWN, PA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-02444)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
April 7, 2005
Before: ROTH, BARRY AND SMITH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed May 12, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Jeffrey D. Hill filed a complaint in which he asserted broad claims of inequity
stemming from the reassessment of real estate values in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
Simultaneously with his complaint, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in
which he averred that he owned no real estate. The District Court dismissed Hill’s
complaint for failure to state a claim. However, the District Court gave Hill an
opportunity to file an amended complaint to include allegations of an injury in fact, if any
such injury existed.
In his amended complaint, Hill repeated his allegations of general unfairness in the
Lycoming County property reassessment, including his assertion that the value of “high-
crime, blighted, ghetto property” was inflated to compensate for the loss of tax revenue
from undervaluation of “exclusive, large, wealthy estate land parcels.” He additionally
claimed that racial minorities, senior citizens, and lower-income people were
discriminated against because they were forced to subsidize the tax burden of wealthy and
politically-connected Lycoming County residents. Concluding that Hill had again failed
to allege an injury, the District Court dismissed his amended complaint for lack of
standing and deemed leave to amend futile. Hill appeals.
Hill’s appeal must be dismissed because it is legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2005). To have standing to bring a suit in federal court, a plaintiff must
demonstrate a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, injury in fact. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). A plaintiff “cannot rest his claim on the
rights or interests of third parties” or merely assert a harm that is a generalized grievance
“shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens.” Warth v. Seldin,
2
422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). Hill did not show an injury in fact, because he did not explain
in his amended complaint or in an accompanying document entitled “damages/injuries”
how he would be adversely affected by the reassessment of Lycoming County property
values. He did not show that he owned real property that was subject to reassessment.
The emotional and psychological toll of his perceived awareness of corruption, which he
described in his “damages/injuries” document, was not a sufficient injury in fact. See
ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 616 (1989). At most, he sought to bring a
generalized grievance or harm to third parties to the District Court’s attention. In sum,
Hill could not show an injury in fact and lacked standing to bring his claim in District
Court. Further amendment to show injury proved futile.
For the reasons stated above, Hill’s appeal of the District Court’s order dismissing
his case is legally frivolous and will be dismissed.