Mincy v. Luzerne County Pennsylvania et al

Filing 302

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 209 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Hilton Karriem Mincy, 268 MOTION to Strike 265 Document Filed, filed by Hilton Karriem Mincy, 278 MOTION to Strike filed by Hilton Karriem Minc y, 248 MOTION Attach "Appendix H" to Second Amended Complaint filed by Hilton Karriem Mincy, 274 MOTION to Strike 257 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Hilton Karriem Mincy, 261 MOTION for Judgment filed by Hi lton Karriem Mincy, 266 MOTION to Strike 261 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's State Law Article 5, Section 9 Pennsylvania Constitution Claim filed by Bob Sypinewski, Samuel C. Stretton, Carolee Medico Olenginiski, Luzerne County Pennsylvania Signed by Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick on 11/20/2014. (cw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HILTON KARRIEM MINCY,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00608

v.

(MARIANI, J.)
(MEHALCHICK, M.J.)

LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,
et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff Hilton Karriem Mincy, an inmate currently incarcerated at
the State Correctional Institution - Forest in Marienville, Pennsylvania, filed the instant action
pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. (Doc. 10). On March 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint and a proposed second amended complaint. (Doc. 112; Doc. 114). On July
8, 2013, while Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint (Doc. 112) was still pending,
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and a proposed second
amended complaint. (Doc. 154, Doc. 156). On September 12, 2013, this Court issued an order
granting Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 154), and mooting all other motions related to Plaintiff filing
an amended complaint. (Doc. 166). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second
amended complaint on September 26, 2013. (Doc. 176). On August 25, 2014, the Court
adopted the Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge (Doc. 253), and
granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 281). On September 8,
2014, Defendants filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 283) to Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint.

Pending before this Court are a number of motions which are ripe for decision, and will
be addressed herein. Specifically, in this Order, the Court will address Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 218), Plaintiff’s Motion to Attach “Appendix H” to the Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 248), Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. 266), and Plaintiff’s three Motions to Strike (Doc. 268, Doc. 274, and Doc.
278). 1
I.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Defendants in this action are Luzerne County, Pennsylvania; Carolee Medico

Olenginski, former Prothonotary of Luzerne County; Bob Sypinewski, former Deputy
Prothonotary of Luzerne County; and Samuel C. Stretton, the former Solicitor to the Luzerne
County Prothonotary’s Office.
Plaintiff’s claims stem from a civil action filed on May 18, 2009, in the Luzerne County
Court of Common Pleas, Mincy v. Marsillio, No. 2009-7626. (Doc. 156, p. 2). In that action,
Plaintiff brought a suit against his former attorney, Thomas Marsillio, claiming legal
malpractice and breach of contract. (Doc. 58, p. 3). Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Marsillo
matter, the court personnel in the Prothonotary’s office exhibited a pattern of misconduct. In

1

Also pending before the Court are the following motions: Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 173), in which Plaintiff asks the District Court to reconsider its Order
(Doc. 166) of September 12, 2013; Plaintiff’s Objection and Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s
Order at Docket #244 (Doc. 247), which Plaintiff has filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72 and Local Rule 72.2; Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 250), in which
Plaintiff asks the District Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 243) of May 15, 2014; Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 218); Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 285); Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify (Doc. 292); and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. 300).
2

that case, a hearing was held on March 29, 2010, and Judge Muroski ordered Plaintiff’s
amended complaint to be filed. (Doc. 156, ¶¶ 17-23). The preliminary objections of the
defendant in that case, Marsillio, were deemed moot and Marsillio indicated to the court via a
letter that his preliminary objections to the amended complaint would be the same, but did not
re-file the objections. (Doc. 156, ¶ 25). On April 12, 2010, the court dismissed the case. (Doc.
156, ¶ 27). Plaintiff alleges that because the objections were not formally re-filed, he was not
given an opportunity to respond, thus violating his right to access the courts. Plaintiff further
avers that the court did not send him a copy of the order entered dismissing his case until a
week later. (Doc. 156, ¶¶ 28-30). Plaintiff also alleges that he moved to amend his complaint
and that either Olenginski or Sypinewski failed to properly file his amended complaint.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants did not permit Plaintiff to file an appeal of Judge
Chester Muroski’s April 12, 2010 Order dismissing, on preliminary objections, Plaintiff’s
complaint in the Marsillio case. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on May 11, 2010, he informed
the court of his intent to appeal. (Doc. 156, ¶ 37). The appeal was not filed. On May 28, 2010,
Defendant Stretton, acting as “Solicitor for the Prothonotary” informed Plaintiff that the appeal
would not be filed because it was received more than thirty (30) days after the court order and
because there were insufficient filing fees attached. (Doc. 13, pp. 2, 6). Plaintiff alleges that
pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, his appeal was given to the prison officials within the
thirty day period and should be considered timely. Plaintiff also alleges that his failure to
include fees should have been addressed with an advisory notice, rather than an outright denial
of the filing. On July 14, 2011, Plaintiff brought a mandamus action seeking to compel
Defendants to accept the filing of his appeal. Mincy v. Olenginski, No. 121 MM 2011. On

3

January 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania entered an order denying Plaintiff’s
petition for writ of mandamus. Mincy v. Olenginski, No. 121 MM 2011.
On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff initiated the instant action against Luzerne County, Judge
Muroski, Olenginski, Sypinewski, and Stretton in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). On November 9, 2012, this Court issued a Report
and Recommendation, recommending that Defendant Judge Muroski be dismissed from the
action. (Doc. 58). This Court further recommended that claims against Defendants Olenginski,
Stretton, and Sypinewski in their official capacities be dismissed. (Doc. 58). On November 29,
2012, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 63).
Pursuant to this Court’s November 29, 2012 Order, the remaining defendants in this
action are Luzerne County, and Olenginski, Sypinewski, and Stretton in their individual
capacities. (Doc. 63, p. 2). The remaining claims are: violations of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments for interfering with Plaintiff’s access to the courts; First Amendment retaliation;
and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. On July 8,
2013, Plaintiff amended his complaint to include the following claims: a Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claim; municipal liability claims; and a state law claim arising out
of Article 5, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. (See Doc. 156). Plaintiff seeks
monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
II.

DISCUSSION
A. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(DOC. 268 AND DOC. 274)
On May 21, 2014, the undersigned magistrate judge entered a Report and

4

Recommendation (Doc. 253) as to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff then filed objections (Doc. 260) to the Report and Recommendations.
Defendants then filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 265). Plaintiff then moved to
strike Defendants’ response to his objections. (Doc. 268). Defendants also filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 257). Plaintiff also moved to strike these objections. (Doc.
274).
On August 25, 2014, the District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. (Doc.
281). As such, Plaintiff’s motions to strike Defendants’ objections to the Report and
Recommendation and their response to his objections are moot, and will be denied as such.
B. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 209)
Plaintiff has moved for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, for
various purported infractions and violations of the rules by Defendants, including untimely
filing of motions and other documents, and misciting case law in their motion to dismiss and
brief in support. Ultimately, though Plaintiff’s motion argues the merits of the underlying
complaint, and does not offer any evidence of misconduct which would serve as a basis of any
alleged misconduct or abuse of process by Defendants or their counsel. In deciding a motion for
Rule 11 sanctions, the Court should not pass judgment on the merits of an action. CTC Imports
& Exports v. Nigerian Petroleum Corp., 951 F.2d 573, 579 (3d Cir. 1991). Moreover, Defendants’
motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and was not unreasonable in its filing.
There is no evidence of any bad faith or failure to investigate by the Defendants. See Teamsters
Local Union No. 430 v. Cement Express, Inc., 841 F.2d 66, 68 (3d Cir.1988), cert. denied 488 U.S.
848, 109 S.Ct. 128, 102 L.Ed.2d 101 (1988)) (Rule 11 sanction is appropriate “only if the filing

5

of the complaint constituted abusive litigation or misuse of the court's process”). In light of all
the circumstances in this case, the Court does not find that sanctions are warranted, and will
deny Plaintiff’s motion.
C. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 266)
On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 261).
Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s motion on July 8, 2014 (Doc. 266). Defendants move to
strike Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that it was prematurely
filed, as the pleadings were not yet closed in this matter. For the following reasons, this Court
will grant Defendant’s motion to strike.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) states as follows: “After the pleadings are closed
but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the
pleadings.” Pleadings are not closed until such time as defendants file an answer to a complaint.
Kalian at Poconos, LLC v. Saw Creek Estates Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., 275 F. Supp. 2d 578, 592 (M.D. Pa.
2003); see 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1367,
at 513 (2d ed.1990)(stating that a “plaintiff cannot move under Rule 12(c) until after an answer
has been filed”). In this case, Plaintiff effectively filed his second amended complaint on
September 12, 2013. (Doc. 166). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on
September 26, 2013 (Doc. 176). On May 21, 2013, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation on that motion to dismiss. (Doc. 253). While that Report and
Recommendation and objections thereto were pending with the District Court, and while
Defendants had not yet filed an answer to the complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 261). As such, pursuant to Rule 12(c), pleadings were not yet
6

closed, and Plaintiff’s motion was premature. For these reasons, the Court will grant
Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 266), and direct that the Court strike Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 261) from the docket. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a
motion to strike (Doc. 278), in which he seeks to strike Defendants’ motion to strike. As this
Court will grant Defendants’ motion, it will deny Plaintiff’s motion to strike.
D. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ATTACH “APPENDIX H” TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (DOC. 248)
On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 248) in which he seeks to untimely file
and attach to his second amended complaint, Appendix H. The proposed Appendix H appears
to be correspondence between Plaintiff and some of the Defendants regarding his request for job
descriptions, and some job descriptions. (Doc. 249).
The Court notes that Plaintiff has amended his complaint twice prior to this motion to
attach. Moreover, in the District Court’s September 12, 2013 order, the Court very explicitly
stated that “absent the most compelling reasons, the Court will not grant any further
amendments to the Complaint.” (Doc. 166). Nearly eight months after this Order, Plaintiff
sought leave to file this attachment and therefore amend his complaint. Granting leave to
amend at this juncture would not only be in violation of the Court’s previous order, but also
would unduly delay and confuse these proceedings further. Such delay and confusion would be
prejudicial to Defendants. Cuerton v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n., 252 F.3d 267, 272 (3d Cir.
2001). Finally, the Court notes that to the extent that the attachment may be relevant to the
issues in this case, there is nothing precluding Plaintiff from attempting to offer it as evidence in

7

response to any dispositive motions, or should the case reach this point, at trial. 2
For these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to attach. (Doc. 248).
III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike Documents Related to Defendants’ Objections to the
Report and Recommendations (Doc. 268 and Doc. 274) are DENIED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 209) is DENIED;
3. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Doc. 266) is GRANTED; the Clerk of Court is directed to Strike Plaintiff’s
Motion (Doc. 261); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 278) is DENIED; and
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Attach “Appendix H” to Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 248) is DENIED.

An appropriate Order will follow.

s/ Karoline Mehalchick

Dated: November 20, 2014

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge

2

The Court is in no way making any determination as to the relevance or admissibility
of these documents for a dispositive motion or at trial, but is merely noting that Plaintiff might
have another avenue in which to introduce these documents into the case without amending his
complaint yet again.
8