Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-28-2008
Liggon-Redding v. Amer Securities Ins
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2658
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Liggon-Redding v. Amer Securities Ins" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 319.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/319
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-83 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2658
___________
ELIZABETH LIGGON-REDDING,
Appellant
v.
AMERICAN SECURITIES INS;
NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE
___________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-00935)
District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 13, 2007
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 28, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Elizabeth Liggon-Redding appeals from the order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing her complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). For the reasons that follow, we will summarily vacate
and remand.
Since January 2006, Liggon-Redding has filed three separate complaints against
Appellees. The District Court dismissed her first complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (M.D. Pa. 06-cv-00227). Liggon-Redding appealed and that appeal is
currently pending before this Court. (C.A. No. 06-1764). On May 9, 2007, Liggon-
Redding filed a second complaint against Appellees, citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1984 (“RICO”), as the basis for
her complaint. (M.D. Pa. 07-cv-00847). Without giving Liggon-Redding an opportunity
to amend, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Liggon-
Redding did not appeal. On May 23, 2007, Liggon-Redding filed a third complaint,
which again alleged RICO violations. The District Court sua sponte dismissed the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii) without giving Liggon-Redding
an opportunity to amend. Liggon-Redding appeals and has filed a motion for the
appointment of counsel.
We have held that when a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, a plaintiff should be granted the opportunity to amend her
complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 116 (3d Cir. 2002). Here, the District Court dismissed Liggon-
2
Redding’s complaint because it failed to allege prior related predicate acts, an element
necessary to plead a RICO civil action. See Lum v. Bank of Am. 361 F.3d 217, 233 (3d
Cir. 2004). Although the District Court also dismissed the complaint as frivolous, we
cannot conclude, at this early stage, that any amendment to Liggon-Redding’s complaint
would be futile. Accordingly, the District Court should have granted Liggon-Redding an
opportunity to amend her complaint.
Because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily vacate the
District Court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4
and I.O.P. 10.6. Liggon-Redding’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.
3