Jon Campisi Jun. 19, 2013, 1:29pm


A U.S. District judge has dismissed as frivolous three pro se complaints that had been

lodged against the FBI, the U.S. Postal Service and the United States Department of Labor by a duo of plaintiffs that the jurist called “no strangers to the court” due to their apparent abuse of the tort system.

Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied a motion by plaintiffs Dennis John Campbell and Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell to hold their civil actions against the defendants in abeyance until the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rules on two pending cases containing similar issues, until the female plaintiff files an additional state court action, and until after U.S. District Judge James Knoll Gardner rules on the woman’s motion for reconsideration to transfer and consolidate yet another suit she has brought.

Instead, Bartle granted the government defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss all three cases with prejudice on the grounds that they are frivolous.

In his memorandum, Bartle states that throughout the years, the plaintiffs have filed 15 “non-meritorious or frivolous lawsuits,” stating that the present complaints are no different than the past cases.

At the heart of the latest three complaints were the plaintiffs’ contention that the agencies either improperly denied, or failed to respond to, their requests for certain records pursuant to both the United States Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts.

The FBI outright denied the request while the Postal Service failed to respond, the record shows.

The action against the Department of Labor “borders on the incoherent,” Bartle elaborated in his memorandum.

That suit stems from an alleged “conspiracy” among the various governmental agencies, Bartle noted.

In essence, the plaintiffs claim that the government, “motivated by Mr. Campbell’s psychological disability,” conspired to withhold benefits related to his employment with the Postal Service.

The specifics with regard to any alleged psychological disability were not disclosed in the memorandum.

The record shows that in early 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to hold their three latest actions in abeyance pending resolution of three other of the plaintiffs’ cases being mulled over the Third Circuit.

The federal appeals court, however, ultimately sided with the government, and affirmed the dismissal of the three other cases.

In late February of last year, Bartle denied a plaintiffs’ motion to re-open and consolidate the three instant actions, and on Oct. 17 of last year the court agreed to place the suits in civil suspense until the disposition of an appeal in yet another of the plaintiffs’ cases.

In April, the Third Circuit characterized the plaintiffs’ claims as “frivolous,” Bartle’s memorandum shows, and the appellate body simultaneously denied a plaintiffs’ motion for an en banc rehearing.

“After careful review of the complaints in the three pending actions, the court agrees with the government and determines that the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous,” Bartle wrote in his June 14 memorandum and order. “There is no reason for these actions to remain on the court’s docket.”

More News