Glenn Harden, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that various mortgage companies failed to provide required notices and disclosures regarding his New Jersey property. He asserted violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alongside citations to various criminal statutes. The District Court initially granted Harden's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), dismissing the claims based on criminal statutes as frivolous since they offered no civil cause of action. When the defendants moved to dismiss the remaining consumer protection claims, Harden opposed the motion and sought reconsideration of the criminal statute dismissal. The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the remaining claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Harden appealed this final order.
The Third Circuit exercised plenary review over the dismissal orders. The court first addressed the claims dismissed based on the statute of limitations. Relying on the principle that litigants forfeit claims they fail to develop in their opening brief, the court agreed with the appellees that Harden had forfeited any argument regarding the timeliness of his claims. Next, the court examined the claims based on criminal statutes. Citing Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, the court affirmed that a bare criminal statute does not imply a private right of action. The court found no error in the District Court's conclusion that these claims were frivolous. Regarding Harden's argument that the complaint should be liberally construed to include a civil RICO claim, the court found no plausible factual allegations in the complaint to support a pattern of racketeering activity. The court also noted that Harden failed to develop arguments regarding the dismissal with prejudice or the denial of reconsideration, and found no abuse of discretion in those rulings. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the District Court erred by canceling an oral hearing, noting that Harden was afforded the opportunity to file two written responses.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, meaning Harden's complaint remains dismissed. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that pro se litigants must develop their legal arguments in appellate briefs to avoid forfeiture. It also clarifies that citing criminal statutes in a civil complaint does not create a cause of action unless Congress has explicitly provided one. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment consistent with this opinion, though the dismissal with prejudice remains in effect.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download