Filed: Dec. 23, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-23-2008 Sharon Chavis v. George Bush Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2559 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Sharon Chavis v. George Bush" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 49. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/49 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-23-2008 Sharon Chavis v. George Bush Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2559 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Sharon Chavis v. George Bush" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 49. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/49 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the O..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-23-2008
Sharon Chavis v. George Bush
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2559
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Sharon Chavis v. George Bush" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 49.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/49
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.
CLD-54 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2559
___________
SHARON CHAVIS,
Appellant
v.
GEORGE W. BUSH, is an individual and the President of the United States;
JOHN ASHCROFT, is an individual and is the Attorney General of the United States;
ROBERT J. MUELLER, is an individual and is Executive Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; MELQUI DADES MARTINES, individually and as past
Executive director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
ALPHONSO JACKSON, an individual and Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development; JOANNE BARNHART, individually and as commissioner of Social
Security; CNA SURETY, is a bonding agency also known as WESTERN SURETY;
JACKSON HEWITT CORPORATION, Tax Service; JAMES MCGREEVEY,
is an individual; WILLIAM M. CONNOLLY, an individual and director of
Community Affairs; WILLIAM L. LIBERERA, is an individual and is
New Jersey Commissioner of the Department of Education; BAYONNE HOSPITAL;
SAMI KANAAN; DORENE KANAAN; LUIS E. PACHECO; PRESSLER &
PRESSLER; GERARD J. FELT; BROWN MICHAEL, individually and
Executive Director of FEMA; RICHARD CODEY, acting Governor of New Jersey
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-06130)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 11, 2008
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 23, 2008 )
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Sharon Chavis, proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment of the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered on April 21, 2008. For
the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court
On December 15, 2004, Chavis filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against a litany
of government defendants: William Connolly, Director of the Division of Codes and
Standards, William Librera, Commissioner of the Department of Education, Richard
Codey, former Acting Governor of New Jersey, and James McGreevey, former Governor
of New Jersey (hereinafter “State Defendants”), and President George W. Bush, former
Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Director of the F.B.I. Robert Mueller, former
Executive Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez,
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, Social Security
Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart, and former Executive Director of FEMA Michael
Brown (hereinafter “Federal Defendants”). Additionally, Chavis named as defendants
Bayonne Hospital, Sami Kanaan, Dorene Kanaan, and Luis E. Pacheco, with whom
Chavis was involved in state court litigation, and whose claims were remanded back to
state court; CNA Surety a/k/a Western Surety Company, with whom Chavis stipulated
2
dismissal on September 15, 2006; and Jackson Hewett Corporation, Pressler & Pressler,
and Gerard J. Felt, who never entered appearances in this case and do not appear to have
ever been served with Chavis’ original or amended complaint and, accordingly, never
became parties. See U.S. v. Studivant, 529 F.2d 673, 674 n.2 (3d Cir. 1976).
Chavis’ lawsuit was based on her claims that, among other things, her federal and
constitutional rights were violated because: (1) her daughter was denied access to public
school; (2) she was denied a HUD section 8 housing certificate as part of a government
conspiracy; (3) the FBI failed to investigate her allegations that she is the victim of a
conspiracy; (4) she was stalked by government employees; and (5) government agencies
failed to properly handle her housing problems following the September 11 attacks on the
World Trade Center. Chavis filed a First Amended Complaint on February 8, 2006,
clarifying her claims but failing to elucidate what actions any of the named defendants
had taken against her. Both the State and Federal Defendants moved to dismiss and, after
holding a hearing on the motions, the District Court granted the State Defendants’ motion
to dismiss with prejudice and the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss without
prejudice. Chavis appealed, and this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
based on the District Court’s dismissal of Chavis’ claims against the Federal Defendants
without prejudice. See C.A. No. 06-3313 (Feb. 23, 2007).
On remand, the District Court issued an order clarifying its reasons for dismissing
Chavis’ complaint against the Federal Defendants without prejudice and allowing her a
3
second opportunity to amend her complaint. In short, the Court held that: (1) Chavis
failed to provide any connection between her allegations and the specific defendants
named; (2) the amended complaint was not properly served; (3) Chavis failed to state a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1437(f), which does not provide for a private right of action
except for recovery of rent and utility allowances, which Chavis did not seek; (4) Chavis
failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because she did not allege that the Federal
Defendants acted pursuant to state law; (5) to the extent Chavis sought to bring a tort
claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act against the Federal Defendants, she failed
to exhaust her remedies; and (6) to the extent Chavis sought to assert constitutional torts
against the Federal Defendants, she failed to allege that any of them had personal
knowledge or involvement in any action taken. Chavis filed a Second Amended
Complaint on June 28, 2007. Concluding that Chavis failed to remedy any of the defects
in her First Amended Complaint, the District Court dismissed the complaint against the
Federal Defendants. By the same order, the District Court also denied Chavis’ motion to
recuse, holding that her claims of bias were based solely on the Court’s rulings against
her, and not on any extrajudicial factors. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994); Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.,
360 F.3d 155, 167 (3d Cir. 2004).
Chavis timely appealed and was informed by Clerk’s Order that this Court would
consider whether summary action was appropriate.
4
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because this
appeal presents no “substantial question,” we will summarily affirm the order of the
District Court for all of the reasons set forth in the District Court’s well-reasoned
opinions. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6. Appellees’ motion for summary action is
denied as moot.
5
