716 Fed.Appx. 124 (3rd Cir. 2017), 17-1182, Bhatt v. Hoffman
|Citation:||716 Fed.Appx. 124|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||Chaula S. BHATT, Appellant v. John J. HOFFMAN, Former N.J. AG; AT & T INC, And Nationwide AT & T Subsidiaries; Attorney Dennis M. Galvin, Glenwood Attorney; Planet Associates Inc., NJ; Collabera Inc., NJ; Affiliates of AT & T; Michael Chirico, HR Director; Stephanie Serpico, HR Associate; Christopher Healy, VP Planet Associates, Inc.; Edward ...|
|Attorney:||Chaula S. Bhatt, Pro Se|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||November 07, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 3, 2017
This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-15-cv-00005), District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Chaula S. Bhatt, Pro Se
Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
Chaula S. Bhatt appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing her amended complaint. We will vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Bhatt formerly worked in some capacity for AT & T, Inc. She initiated this action against AT & T and 10 other defendants by filing pro se a 112-page complaint (exclusive of exhibits) asserting 75 claims. She alleged, among other things, that AT & T wrongfully terminated her and then conspired with numerous other defendants to subject her to wrongful criminal prosecutions and deprive her of other employment opportunities.
Bhatt filed her complaint in forma pauperis, so the District Court screened it before service of process pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The District Court then dismissed it without prejudice and with leave to amend for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). In doing so, the District Court briefly set forth the requirements of Rule 8(a), but it did not explain why it deemed Bhatts complaint deficient or otherwise provide her with any guidance on how she could amend.
Bhatt initially did not file an amended complaint. Instead, she later filed a motion for leave to file an untimely amendment on the ground that she never received the District Courts order. Bhatts action was assigned to the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan, who held a hearing on Bhatts motion. At that hearing, Judge Sheridan advised Bhatt that, "due to some personal issues, I have a conflict of interest with [defendant] Attorney General Hoffman. So, as a result, I cant make a ruling on your case right now, I need to forward this to another judge to make a decision." (ECF No. 23 at 5.)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP