Thomas Washam v. Superintendent Dallas SCI, No. 21-3073 (3d Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ALD-134 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-3073 ___________ THOMAS WASHAM, Appellant v. SUPERINTENDENT DALLAS SCI; MR. KATTNER; ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-01391) District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 21, 2022 Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 4, 2022) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Thomas Washam is a Pennsylvania prisoner and a frequent pro se litigant. In this case, he filed what the District Court docketed as a habeas petition but later treated as a * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. non-habeas complaint. Washam’s complaint consisted of 22 documents, some of which were captioned for a Pennsylvania state court. It appears from these documents that Washam filed a state-court complaint against prison employees who allegedly refused to notarize a “trust transfer deed” that Washam believed would give him legal title to his jail cell. It further appears that Washam filed this civil action after the state-court defendants did not respond. His documents captioned for federal court, with titles such as “local action for equitable conversion” and “notice of condemnation,” appear to seek an order transferring ownership of his jail cell to him. A Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Washam’s complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 but granting him leave to amend. Washam then filed a series of documents consisting largely of frivolous Sovereign-Citizen-like arguments and legal jargon that was by turns inapposite and indecipherable. The District Court ultimately adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Washam’s complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8, but it dismissed his complaint without leave to amend because it found from his later filings that amendment would be futile. Washam appeals. We review for abuse of discretion both the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 and the denial of leave to amend. See Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 89, 91 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1611 (2020). The District Court did not abuse its discretion in this case. Although the court was able to piece together the general subject matter of Washam’s complaint, dismissal under Rule 8 ultimately was within the court’s discretion because it permissibly concluded that the complaint was “so confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible” as to provide 2 insufficient notice of any specific claims. Id. at 94 (quotation marks omitted). The complaint also did not set forth any plausible claim to relief. See id. at 92-93. Similarly, we see no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of Washam’s complaint without leave to amend. The District Court permissibly concluded from Washam’s numerous filings that amendment would be futile, and Washam’s filings on appeal tend only to confirm that conclusion. For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Our ruling is without prejudice to Washam’s ability to pursue whatever remedies he may be seeking in state court. We express no opinion on that issue. Washam’s motions in this Court are denied. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
