BROWN v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 12/7/2017. 12/8/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(sg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON L. BROWN
PROGRESSIVE SPECIAL TY
MICHAEL J. DOUGHERTY
Plaintiff Jason Brown believes that defendants Progressive Specialty Insurance Company
("Progressive") and its attorney Michael J. Dougherty improperly sued him in state court. He
seeks to proceed in forma pauper is in this civil action. For the following reasons, the Court will
grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject
Attachments to the complaint reflect that Dougherty filed a complaint on behalf of
Progressive in the Philadelphia Municipal Court against plaintiff based on a car accident that
occurred on September 29, 2015. Progressive's complaint alleges that plaintiff caused a car
accident that resulted in $4,467.46 in damage to an individual insured by Progressive.
Plaintiff initiated the instant civil action based on allegations that the defendants "engaged its
business purposes into attempts of fraud and swindles." (Compl. at 3, if 111.C.) He adds that his
"public safety is being violated through abuse and fraud" and claims that the defendants have
invaded his privacy. He seeks $500,000 in damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is unable to
pay the costs of filing suit. As plaintiff is proceeding informa pauperis, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a
claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the
same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6),
see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quotations omitted). As plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his allegations
liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen!., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, "[i]fthe court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
It appears that plaintiff is trying to bring claims based on federal criminal statutes that he
cited in his complaint as well as various constitutional provisions. However, federal criminal
statutes generally do not provide a basis for civil liability. See Cent. Bank of Denver, NA. v.
First Interstate Bank of Denver, NA., 511U.S.164, 190 (1994) ("We have been quite reluctant
to infer a private right of action from a criminal prohibition alone[.]"). In other words, plaintiff
may not pursue claims based on alleged federal criminal violations in this civil action.
To the extent plaintiff intended to bring constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
those claims also fail. "[A] suit under § 1983 requires the wrongdoers to have violated federal
rights of the plaintiff, and that they did so while acting under color of state law." Groman v.
Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995). Here, it is clear from the complaint that
the defendants are private actors-an insurance company and its attorney-rather than officials
of state government. Additionally, nothing in the complaint sets forth any reasonable basis for
concluding that plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated.
To the extent plaintiff is raising claims under state law, the only possible independent basis
for subject matter jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which grants a district court jurisdiction
over a case in which "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States." 1 Here, the complaint
reflects that the parties are not completely diverse because plaintiff and at least one of the
defendants-Michael Dougherty-appear to be citizens of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, there is
no basis for jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. If plaintiff seeks to pursue those
claims, he should proceed in state court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice to
him refiling his state law claims in state court. Plaintiff will not be given leave to file an
amended complaint because he cannot cure the defects noted above. See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). An appropriate order follows, which shall be
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, having dismissed plaintiff's federal
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?