EPSHTEYN v. TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN, DELAWARE COUNTY PA et al

Filing 7

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
CIVIL ACTION

YURIY S. EPSHTEYN
v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DELAWARE COUNTY, PA, et al.

NO. 14-1046

MEMORANDUM
AUGUST

DAVIS, J.

I

2014

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit
against the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas and his next
door neighbors.

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).
A.

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.
B.

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

0

Appeals v.

Feldman,

Co., 263 U.S.

c.

413

460 U.S. 462

(1983); Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust

(1923).

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

(1988).

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.
v. Kann,

926 F.2d 1396, 1405 n.16 (3d Cir. 1991)

See Young

(conspiracy

claims may be dismissed as legally frivolous where claims are not
based on fact, but rather on plaintiff's suspicion and
speculation) .
D.

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.
U.S. 298

(1994);

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.

Therefore, these