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, )

Download PDF
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

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?