EPSHTEYN v. TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN, DELAWARE COUNTY PA et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LEGROME D. DAVIS ON 8/6/14. 8/7/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND UNREPS AND E-MAILED.(mbh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
YURIY S. EPSHTEYN
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DELAWARE COUNTY, PA, et al.
Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit
against the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas and his next
His amended complaint (Document No. 6) deals
with a civil case that he filed against his neighbors, Philip
Iannucci and Denise Green in the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas, and the events that led to the filing of that case.
For the following reasons, plaintiff's amended
complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is a state
entity entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
See Benn v.
First Judicial Dist. Of Pa., 426 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2005).
Therefore, the claims against the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas must be dismissed.
Review of State Court Decisions
It appears that plaintiff has filed this action because
he is not satisfied with the manner in which his civil case was
handled in State Court.
However, a federal court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
See District of Columbia Court of
Co., 263 U.S.
460 U.S. 462
(1983); Rooker v.
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Philip
Ianucci and Denise Green
In order to bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state
law deprived him of his constitutional rights.
487 U.S. 42
West v. Atkins,
There are no allegations in the complaint
that would allow this Court to find that Philip Iannucci and
Denise Green are state actors.
Although plaintiff alleges that
these defendants were involved in a conspiracy with state actors,
these bald assertions are insufficient to support a conspiracy
based claim against these defendants in this action.
926 F.2d 1396, 1405 n.16 (3d Cir. 1991)
claims may be dismissed as legally frivolous where claims are not
based on fact, but rather on plaintiff's suspicion and
Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985
Plaintiff is also attempting to bring claims
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985.
There are no allegations in
the complaint that would support a finding that the defendants'
actions were motivated by racial or class-based animus or that
there has been an interference with federal officials or federal
court proceedings which is necessary to bring an action under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985.
See Rivers v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 511
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506
U.S. 263 (1993); Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 724-25 (1983);
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Brawer v.
Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 840 (3d Cir. 1976).
claims will be dismissed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?