JOHNSON v. ERIE COUNTY et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER GRANTING 21 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM or, In the Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JET 24 NEWS, and 11 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by ERIE COUNTY, and DISMISSING this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 12/22/2014. (fcf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES E. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff
v.
ERIE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. 14-12 Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
OPINION AND ORDER1
United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Relevant Procedural and Factual History
On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff Charles E. Johnson, an inmate incarcerated at the Erie
County Prison in Erie, Pennsylvania (AECP@), filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. ' 1983 against Defendants Erie County and WJET 24 News (“WJET”) [ECF No. 6].
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was a pretrial detainee in the Erie County Prison on November
13, 2013, Defendant WJET erroneously displayed his picture when it reported the conviction
and sentence of another individual named Charles Johnson. (ECF No. 6, Complaint, at Section
IV.A, C). Plaintiff claims that this error deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair
trial, and violated his rights under Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. (Id.,
Section IV.C). As relief for his claims, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of “a change
1
All parties have consented to having a United States Magistrate Judge exercise jurisdiction over this matter. [ECF
1
of venue to Michigan” and “waived mandatory minimum,” as well as monetary damages. (Id. at
Section VI).
On March 26, 2014, Defendant Erie County filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 11],
arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff has failed to allege any factual basis to establish municipal
liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). On April 29,
2014, Defendant WJET filed a motion to dismiss complaint or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment [ECF No. 21], arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish that Jet
was acting under color of state law so as to subject it to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
addition, both Defendants argue that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not create a private
cause of action for damages. Despite having been granted ample time to do so, Plaintiff has
failed to file a response to either Defendant’s motion. This matter is now ripe for consideration.
B.
Standards of Review
1.
Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint must be accepted as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). A
complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) if it does not allege Aenough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)(rejecting the traditional 12 (b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41
(1957)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (specifically applying Twombly
Nos. 3, 13, 20].
2
analysis beyond the context of the Sherman Act).
The Court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff if they are unsupported by the
facts as set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Employee Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp.,
394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) citing Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906
(3d Cir. 1997). Nor must the court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). AFactual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.@ Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. Although the United States Supreme Court does Anot require heightened fact
pleading of specifics, [the Court does require] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.@ Id. at 570.
In other words, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff is Arequired to make a >showing=
rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief.@ Smith v. Sullivan, 2008 WL 482469,
at *1 (D.Del. February 19, 2008) quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d
Cir. 2008). AThis >does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,= but instead
>simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence of= the necessary element.@ Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556.
The Third Circuit Court has prescribed the following three-step approach to determine the
sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal:
First, the court must >tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to
state a claim.= Second, the court should identify allegations that, >because
they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.= Finally, >where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
3
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement for relief.=
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011), citing Santiago v. Warminster
Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947, 1950); see also Great
Western Mining & Min. Co. v. Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 177 (3d Cir. 2010).
2.
Pro Se Pleadings
Pro se pleadings, Ahowever inartfully pleaded,@ must be held to Aless stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers@ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). If the
court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it
should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax
and sentence construction, or litigant=s unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. See Boag v.
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552,
555 (3d Cir. 1969) (Apetition prepared by a prisoner... may be inartfully drawn and should be read
>with a measure of tolerance=@); Freeman v. Department of Corrections, 949 F.2d 360 (10th Cir.
1991). Under our liberal pleading rules, a district court should construe all allegations in a
complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir.1997)(overruled on
other grounds). See, e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)(discussing Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) standard); Markowitz v. Northeast Land Company, 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir.
1990)(same). Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this Court will consider facts and make
inferences where it is appropriate.
4
C.
Discussion
1.
Sixth Amendment Claim
a.
Erie County
Plaintiff has failed to state any specific allegations against Defendant Erie County upon
which a constitutional claim may be established directly. It is, thus, apparent that Plaintiff’s claim
against Erie County is indirectly based upon its municipal authority. Based on this understanding,
Defendant Erie County has moved for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim due to
Plaintiff’s failure to state any allegations that would establish municipal liability under Monell.
Municipal liability under '1983 requires the plaintiff to prove the existence of a policy
or custom of the defendant municipality that resulted in a constitutional violation. Monell, 436
U.S. at 694-95. Here, Plaintiff has not so much as alleged the existence of a policy or custom that
allegedly resulted in a constitutional violation. Furthermore, a policy, custom or practice cannot
arise from one incident. See, e.g., Turner v. City of Philadelphia, 22 F.Supp.2d 434, 437 (E.D.Pa.
1998), quoting Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985) (AAbsent unusual
circumstances, >proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose
liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by an
existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be attributed to a municipal
policymaker.=@). Thus, Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim against Defendant Erie County will be
dismissed.
b.
WJET 24 News
Defendant WJET seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim based, in part,
5
upon Plaintiff’s failure to allege any facts that would show that WJET was acting under color of
state law at the time of the alleged incident on November 13, 2013.
In order to prevail on a Section 1983 claim, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant WJET
acted under color of state law. See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978). Otherwise,
there is no basis for jurisdiction under Section 1983. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838
(1982). Clearly, Plaintiff has neither alleged, nor can he establish, that Defendant WJET was a
state actor or that its conduct was Afairly attributable to the state.@ See Lugar v. Edmundson Oil
Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). As a result, Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim against Defendant
WJET will be dismissed.
2.
Pennsylvania Constitution
Plaintiff generally asserts that Defendants violated his rights under Article I, Section 9 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that
“[a]ll men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible
rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing
and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.” Pa.Const. Art. I, §
1. However, Pennsylvania does not have a statute equivalent to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that authorizes
private lawsuits based on violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution. While the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania has not yet ruled on the issue of whether there is a private cause of action for
damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution, federal courts in this Circuit have considered the
issue and consistently held that no such private cause of action exists. See, e.g., Ryan v. General
Machine Products, 277 F.Supp.2d 585, 595 (E.D.Pa. 2003); Douris v. Schweiker, 229 F.Supp.2d
6
391, 405 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Lees v. West Greene School Dist., 632 F.Supp. 1327, 1335 (W.D.Pa.
1986). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim based on Defendants’ alleged violation of the Pennsylvania
Constitution fails as a matter of law and will be dismissed.
An appropriate Order follows.
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES E. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff
v.
ERIE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. 14-12 Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2014,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Erie County’s motion to dismiss [ECF No.
11] is GRANTED; Defendant WJET 24 News’s motion to dismiss complaint or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED; and this case is DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
8
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?