NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-1612
__________
MICHAEL ROBINSON,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF SHAMOKIN, PA; NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY; ANTHONY
MATULEWICZ, Northumberland County, D.A.; DEGG STARK; LAURA JAMES
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 4-22-cv-00045)
District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 18, 2023
Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed August 3, 2023)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Michael Robinson alleges that his political opponents conspired to have him
imprisoned in order to thwart his campaign for county commissioner, violating his
constitutional rights. The District Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a
claim, and Robinson now appeals. We will affirm.
I.
In 2019, Robinson announced his candidacy for Northumberland County
Commissioner. His amended complaint alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy by various
City and County officials to keep him off the campaign trail.1 He alleges that the
defendants, among other things: tricked him into missing an August 2019 court hearing,
resulting his arrest for failure to appear; subjected him to malicious prosecution for
allegedly disrupting an August 2019 Shamokin City Council meeting, causing him to be
charged criminally and jailed for several months;2 set his bail unconstitutionally high; and
burned his house down. (See ECF No. 17 at 2–9).3
1
The amended complaint names five defendants: (1) the City of Shamokin; (2)
Northumberland County; (3) Anthony Matulewicz, the Northumberland County district
attorney; (4) Degg Stark, a police detective with the district attorney’s office; and (5)
Laura James, a secretary with the district attorney’s office. (ECF No. 17 at 1). Robinson
later filed a “Notice to Court,” seeking to add as defendants former Pennsylvania
Governor Tom Wolf and current Governor Josh Shapiro. (ECF No. 25 at 2).
2
Robinson filed a separate § 1983 lawsuit based on his alleged mistreatment while in the
Northumberland County Jail awaiting trial. See M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:21-cv-1905. The
District Court dismissed that case for failure to state a claim, and Robinson did not
appeal.
3
This is not the first time that Robinson has alleged a widespread conspiracy to harm him
in retaliation for seeking public office. See Robinson v. Geisinger Hosp., 814 F. App’x
670 (3d Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal of Robinson’s § 1983 complaint that named
over 60 defendants).
2
The Magistrate Judge screened Robinson’s complained under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended that the District Court dismiss Robinson’s complaint for
failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.4 (ECF No. 23 at 5). The Magistrate Judge
also recommended that Robinson not be given leave to amend, reasoning that the facts
alleged in the complaint, the exhibits filed with it, and Robinson’s extensive history of
frivolous litigation would make any amendment futile. (Id. at 4). Additionally, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that Robinson’s motion for unspecified injunctive relief
be denied as moot. (Id. at 5).
After reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and
Robinson’s objections to it, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report in its
entirety, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and denied Robinson’s motion
for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 26). Robinson appeals.5
II.
We decline to reach the merits of Robinson’s case because his appeal brief fails to
meaningfully present any issues to us for review. As a pro se appellant, Robinson is
afforded liberal construction of his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–
4
Robinson’s pleadings do not reference § 1983 by name. Nonetheless, we agree with the
District Court’s decision to construe Robinson’s complaint as attempting to state a claim
under that statute, because the essence of his complaint is the alleged violation of his
constitutional rights by state and local officials. See Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683,
688 (3d Cir. 2002) (in reviewing a dismissal for failure to state claim, the Court of
Appeals must interpret a pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally and apply the applicable
law even if the plaintiff has not mentioned it by name).
5
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3
21 (1972). But the failure to raise an issue in an opening brief, even by pro se parties,
renders it forfeited. See Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 2002).
This is especially so for experienced pro se litigants like Robinson, who is no stranger to
this Court or to the District Court. 6 See Capogrosso v. The Supreme Ct. of New Jersey,
588 F.3d 180, 184 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009) (limiting review to only those issues raised in
litigant’s appeal brief because appellant was an experienced pro se litigant).
To properly present an issue to the Court for review, a litigant’s opening brief
must include, among other things: a statement of the issue, the legal argument explaining
why the district court decided the issue incorrectly, and the facts and legal authorities
supporting that argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 28; L.R. App. P. 28.0. Robinson’s brief, by
contrast, is essentially just a restatement of his amended complaint. He asserts in
conclusory fashion that his complaint states a claim, but he presents no facts, legal
authorities, or argument explaining why the District Court’s contrary view was
erroneous. Therefore, we conclude that Robinson has forfeited review of this and all
other issues on appeal. See Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care Inc., 62 F.4th 755, 763
6
See Robinson v. Northumberland Cnty. Jail, Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-01905, 2022 WL
4227515 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2022); Robinson v. Geisinger Hosp., Civil Action No.
4:18-cv-989, 2019 WL 4898778 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2019), report & recommendation
adopted by 2019 WL 4885949 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2019), aff’d per curiam, 814 Fed.
App’x 670 (3d Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 631 (2020); Robinson v. Leschinskie,
Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-1416, 2018 WL 3487581 (M.D. Pa. June 27, 2018), report &
recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 3473970 (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2018); Robinson v.
Millbrand, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-1322, 2018 WL 2709375 (M.D. Pa. May 11,
2018), report & recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 2689583 (M.D. Pa. June 5,
2018); Robinson v. Northumberland Cnty. Children & Youth Servs., Civil No. 4:17-cv-
1321, 2018 WL 3323630 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2018), report & recommendation adopted
by 2018 WL 1517072 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2018).
4
(3d Cir. 2023) (appellant whose brief made only passing reference to an issue forfeited
review of that issue).
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellant’s
outstanding motions are denied.
5