Shawn KIRTZ, Appellant v. Michael BARKLEY, 325 F. App'x 51

OPINION PER CURIAM. Pro se appellant Shawn Kirtz appeals from the dismissal of a lawsuit that he filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In March 2009, Kirtz filed a one-paragraph complaint requesting an “emergency audit of [his] account [][t]o see if property in question power of attorney” was given to him. It appears that this cause of action is in some way tied to the complaint that Kirtz filed in the District Court in Civil Action 09-cv-00863.

On March 19, 2009, the District Court dismissed the complaint, stating that it was “legally and factually unintelligible” and that “[Reasonable efforts to decipher the nature of the claims have failed to produce an understanding of the harm alleged or the relief sought.” The District Court’s dismissal order also noted that Kirtz had failed to include a statement of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having. granted Kirtz leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must now determine whether his appeal should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Having reviewed Kirtz’s complaint, we agree with the District Court that his claims are legally and factually unintelligible, and that he has failed to present a cognizable cause of action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. 1827. Furthermore, Kirtz failed to clarify his claims in his submissions to this Court, and we remain unable to understand the harm alleged or the relief sought. Accordingly, because this appeal presents no arguable legal issue, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2)(B).

We deny Kirtz’s motions for a jury trial and for an emergency audit of his account.