Paul Bishop v. US Department of Agriculture, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY JR. and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. CLD-184

Case: 17-3755

Document: 003112948718

Page: 1

CLD-184

Date Filed: 06/06/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3755
___________
PAUL J. BISHOP,
Appellant
v.
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE;
THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-03372)
District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti
____________________________________

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
April 19, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, Jr., and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 6, 2018)
_________
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.

Case: 17-3755

Document: 003112948718

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/06/2018

Pro se appellant Paul J. Bishop appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing
his complaint sua sponte on the grounds that it was frivolous and failed to state a claim,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). We will dismiss the appeal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it has no arguable basis in law or fact.
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, who are already familiar with this case,
we include only those facts necessary to reach our conclusion.
In 2015, Bishop filed a Title VII complaint against the United States Department
of Agriculture. The District Court granted a motion to dismiss, and Bishop appealed.
This Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. See Bishop v. U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., ___ F. App’x ___, 2018 WL 798474 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2018, No. 17-2566) (per
curiam).
In 2017, Bishop filed a nearly identical complaint in the District Court. The
District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This appeal followed.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d
220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires us to dismiss an appeal that
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir.
2006) (per curiam) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).

2

Case: 17-3755

Document: 003112948718

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/06/2018

We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of the suit on the basis that it repeats
the exact same claims the District Court and this Court have previously rejected. See
Bishop, 2018 WL 798474 at *2. Bishop provided no new argument in the District Court
why his claims had merit, and has not made any such argument on appeal. Thus,
Bishop’s appeal lacks arguable merit, and we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

3