SYLVIA H. RAMBO, District Judge.
In this Section 1983 civil rights action, Plaintiff has sued two Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission officers, the Sheriff of Adams County, Pennsylvania, and a Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas judge for various alleged violations of his constitutional rights
Proceeding in this matter pro se, Plaintiff, Luther T. Ridge, filed the complaint
On January 8, 2009, Defendants Britcher and Keller entered Plaintiff's home to execute a "failure to pay" warrant issued by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (Doc. 1, p. 2; Doc. 1-1, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff immediately asked to see the warrant, but the officers refused to show it to him, stating: "We don't have to show you shit." (Doc. 1, p. 2.) Thereupon, the officers pepper sprayed him and threw him to the floor under the pretext that he was resisting arrest. (Id.) Following his arrest, Plaintiff was charged with Resisting Arrest, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5104; Resisting Apprehension or Inspection, in violation of 30 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 904(a); and two counts of Summary Disorderly Conduct, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5503. (Doc. 1-1, ¶ 1.)
A jury trial on these charges was held on or about January 26, 2010 with Judge Campbell presiding. (Doc. 1-1, ¶ 3.) Judge Campbell made "many errors" at trial, including instructing the jury that, "if [Plaintiff] argued with [Officers Britcher and Keller], he's guilty [and] if he told them he wasn't going with them he's guilty." (Doc. 1, p. 5.) The jury convicted Plaintiff of Resisting Apprehension or Inspection, a misdemeanor in the first degree, but returned a verdict of not guilty on the Summary Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest charges.
Following the trial, Judge Campbell granted a motion by Plaintiff's trial counsel's to withdraw his appearance, despite counsel's failure to follow the proper rules of procedure in pursuing the motion.
On or about January 4, 2013, the trial court scheduled a hearing for February 12, 2013, relating to Plaintiff's release pending disposition of his PCRA Petition; however, Plaintiff was not notified of the hearing and, therefore, did not appear in court. (Doc. 1, p. 3.) Due to his absence, the trial court issued a "failure to appear" bench warrant on February 23, 2013. (Doc. 1, p. 3.) Plaintiff received notice of the warrant via mail on February 23, 2013, at which time he promptly contacted the sheriff's office and arranged for a new hearing date of February 28, 2013.
Despite the closed warrant, on February 28, 2013, as Plaintiff sat in his truck in front of the Adam's County Courthouse waiting for the courthouse to open in order to appear at his hearing, four uniformed sheriff's deputies
Without specifically elaborating as to how the actions allegedly taken by each defendant violated his constitutional rights, Plaintiff requests that the court provide him relief by issuing:
(Doc. 1, pp. 5-6.)
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the jurisdiction of the court to address the merits of the plaintiff's complaint." Vieth v. Pennsylvania, 188 F.Supp.2d 532, 537 (M.D.Pa.2002) (quoting Ballenger v. Applied Digital Solutions, Inc., 189 F.Supp.2d 196, 199 (D.Del.2002)). When presented with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff "will have the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist." Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir.2006); Kehr Packages v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir.1991).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) may present either a facial or factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. See Petruska, 462 F.3d at 302 n. 3; Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.1977); see also Carpet Grp. Int'l v. Oriental Rug Imps. Ass'n, 227 F.3d 62, 69 (3d Cir.2000). A "facial attack" assumes that the allegations of the complaint are true, but contends that the pleadings fail to present an action within the court's jurisdiction. Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. Such a motion should only be granted if it appears with certainty that the court's assertion of jurisdiction would be improper. Id.; Carpet Grp., 227 F.3d at 69. A "factual attack" argues that, while the pleadings themselves facially establish jurisdiction, one or more of the factual allegations is untrue, thereby causing the matter to fall outside the court's jurisdiction. Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. On a factual attack, the court must evaluate the merits of the disputed allegations because "the trial court's ... very power to hear the case" is at issue. Id.; Carpet Grp., 227 F.3d at 69.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir.1993). In reviewing the motion, a court "may consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim." Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 221 n. 3 (2004). The motion will be properly granted when, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations and inferences drawn therefrom as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
To survive the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). While the 12(b)(6) standard does not require "detailed factual allegations," there
The three present motions together contemplate the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The court will address each motion in turn. Preliminarily, however, as Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to Section 1983, the court will briefly address the law as it pertains to that statute.
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code offers private citizens a means to redress violations of federal law committed by state officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Id. "Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, but merely a method to vindicate violations of federal law committed by state actors." Pappas v. City of Lebanon, 331 F.Supp.2d 311, 315 (M.D.Pa. 2004) (quoting Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002)). To establish a claim under this section, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: 1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) said conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 421 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988)).
In their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Defendants Britcher and Keller do not challenge whether they were acting "under color of state law" or whether their conduct violated Plaintiff's rights as secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Rather, they contend that Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against them are barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 7, p. 2.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that a statute of limitations defense generally cannot be used in the context of a 12(b)(6) motion.
Although federal statutory law does not contain a specific statute of limitations for civil rights actions, such claims are subject to the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. O'Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 126 (3d Cir.2006). In this regard, federal courts sitting in Pennsylvania have adopted Pennsylvania's two-year personal injury statute of limitations set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524, in determining that a Section 1983 claim must be filed no later than two years from the date the cause of action accrued. See Knoll v. Springfield Twp. Sch. Dist., 763 F.2d 584, 585 (3d Cir.1985) (holding that the two-year limitations period of 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5524 applies to Section 1983 actions). The limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the Section 1983 action.
In the present case, with regard to the claims against Defendants Britcher and Keller, the statute of limitations period began to run on January 8, 2009, when Britcher and Keller allegedly entered Plaintiff's home to execute a warrant and used physical force to take him into custody. (See Doc. 1, pp. 1-2; Doc. 1-1, ¶ 1.) Accordingly, the two-year statute of limitations expired on January 8, 2011, more than two years before Plaintiff filed this action. Consequently, insofar as Defendants Britcher and Keller are concerned, Plaintiff's claims are barred as untimely and will therefore be dismissed.
While the grant or denial of leave to amend a complaint is generally a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, Arab African Int'l Bank v. Epstein, 10 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir.1993), the Third Circuit has adopted a particularly liberal approach to the amendment of pleadings to ensure that a "particular claim will be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities." Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 486-87 (3d Cir. 1990). Dismissal without leave to amend is justified only on the grounds of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 113 (3d Cir.2002); see also Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir.2000); In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). An amendment would be futile, and leave to amend should be denied, where the statute of limitations or some other affirmative defense would compel dismissal of the claim. Grayson, 293 F.3d at 113. Thus, with regard to Plaintiff's claims against Britcher and Keller, the court finds that leave to amend would be futile as there is no conceivable scenario under which Plaintiff could allege facts which would render the action timely. The court will therefore dismiss the complaint against Britcher and Keller with prejudice.
The gravamen of Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Judge Campbell is that he made "many errors" pertaining to Plaintiff's trial. As a result of these errors, Plaintiff asks the court to "issue injunctive relief relieving Judge Campbell of subject matter jurisdiction and void all orders issued by him as allowed by case law when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law." (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6.) Judge Campbell argues that Plaintiff's claims against him should be dismissed based on judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the Younger abstention doctrine. (Doc. 13.) For the reasons set forth below, Judge Campbell's motion will be granted.
The claims asserted against Judge Campbell arise solely from actions undertaken in his capacity as a judge of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. The Supreme Court has long recognized that judges are absolutely immune from suit under Section 1983 for monetary damages arising from their judicial acts. Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir.2000); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). In determining whether such immunity attaches, the essential inquiry is whether, at the time the judge took the challenged judicial action, he had jurisdiction over the subject matter before him.
Public policy strongly supports the broad grant of judicial immunity found in federal precedent. As the Supreme Court recognized in Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991), although "unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequence to himself." (citations omitted). As the Court explained in a subsequent decision, "[i]f judges were personally liable for erroneous decisions, the resulting avalanche of suits, most of them frivolous and vexatious, would provide powerful incentive for judges to avoid rendering decisions likely to provoke such suits." Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988).
In the instant case, Plaintiff's allegations against Judge Campbell relate to actions or omissions taken by him during the course of the criminal proceedings and were well within the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is also unavailing. Indeed, a 1996 amendment to Section 1983 provides that, "injunctive relief shall not be granted" in an action brought against "a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity ... unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable."
Additionally, insofar as Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief in some unspecified form, the claims will be dismissed. Whether declaratory relief should be granted in an appropriate case is committed to the court's sound discretion. Iseley v. Bucks Cnty., 549 F.Supp. 160, 166 (E.D.Pa.1982). In determining the appropriateness of declaratory relief, the court must consider whether such relief will resolve an uncertainty giving rise to a controversy, the convenience of the parties, the public interest, and the availability of other remedies. Id. Declaratory judgment is an inappropriate remedy if it is used solely to adjudicate past conduct. See Corliss v. O'Brien, 200 Fed.Appx. 80, 84 (3d Cir.2006). As such, the court should deny the request for declaratory relief where the plaintiff is not seeking declaratory relief in the true legal sense. See id.
Here, from what the court can discern, it does not appear Plaintiff has pled any legally cognizable claims for declaratory relief. Moreover, public policy favors dismissal of all claims against Judge Campbell. See Waris v. Frick, No. 06-5189, 2007 WL 954108, *9 (E.D.Pa. Mar.28, 2007) ("[T]he purposes of judicial immunity and the limitations of injunctive relief in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 would be ill-served if judges routinely were forced to defend against declaratory judgment actions like this one, where their immunity obviously shields them from liability for money damages."); see also Hansen v. Ahlgrimm, 520 F.2d 768, 770 (7th Cir.1975) (denying declaratory relief where it was a predicate to damage relief and damage claims were barred by judicial immunity).
Plaintiff's claims against Judge Campbell for money damages and injunctive and declaratory relief are also barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. A suit against Judge Campbell in his office is tantamount to a suit against the Commonwealth itself and therefore Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the United States Supreme Court "established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication [of a claim] would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding." Yi Yang v. Tsui, 416 F.3d 199, 202 (3d Cir. 2005). The Younger Court based its decision on the principles of comity and "the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings." Younger, 401 U.S. at 43, 91 S.Ct. 746. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Younger abstention doctrine requires a federal court to abstain from proceeding when the following three requirements are met: (1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state
All three predicates exist here:
Based upon the foregoing discussion regarding judicial and Eleventh Amendment immunity and the Younger abstention doctrine, the court finds that any attempt to amend the complaint to assert a viable claim against Judge Campbell would be futile. Consequently, Plaintiff's claims against Judge Campbell will be dismissed with prejudice.
Sheriff Muller seeks dismissal of the claims against him based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, or alternatively, qualified immunity. The court will grant the motion for failure to state a claim and elect not to address the issue of qualified immunity at this time.
Although the caption of the complaint includes Sheriff Muller's name, the complaint itself provides no factual allegations regarding Sheriff Muller himself. It is well settled in the Third Circuit that, for a Section 1983 claim to be adequately pled, the complaint's allegations must show that each named defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations. Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077, 1082 (3d Cir. 1976). As the court stated in Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988):
Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207 (citations omitted). Given that the complaint fails to make any allegations against Sheriff Muller, the court could dismiss the claims against him at this juncture. The court is cognizant, however, of Plaintiff's pro se status and thus will attempt to glean from the complaint those facts which Plaintiff seems to believe support a claim against Sheriff Muller.
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, despite being assured by Lieutenant Miller that no further action would be taken pursuant to the closed bench warrant, four uniformed deputies arrested
However, a review of Plaintiff's response to Sheriff Muller's motion to dismiss shows that Plaintiff may be seeking to hold Sheriff Muller liable for actions above and beyond his supervisory status alone. Indeed, the additional facts, if properly alleged, may provide a plausible claim against Sheriff Muller, i.e., Sheriff Muller, knowing the warrant had been closed, instructed the deputies to arrest Plaintiff; Sheriff Muller was present at the time of Plaintiff's arrest; the arresting officers were acting under Sheriff Muller's control and direction; and Sheriff Muller told Plaintiff of the department's policy of making arrests on inactive warrants. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 8-12.) Therefore, based upon the foregoing allegations and considering the liberal pleading requirements under Rule 8 and the less-stringent pleading requirements afforded to pro se plaintiffs, the court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must be complete in all respects. As such, it must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed. Young v. Keohane, 809 F.Supp. 1185, 1189 (M.D.Pa.1992). Thus, the amended complaint should include all allegations relating to Plaintiff's claims against Sheriff Muller and should not address any of Plaintiff's claims that were disposed of as a result of the instant motion to dismiss.
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Britcher, Keller, and Judge Campbell will be granted and these defendants will be terminated as parties to this action with prejudice. The claims against Sheriff Muller will also be dismissed, but Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
An appropriate order will issue.
