MOLSON v. PB 18 GIRARD STATE POLICE BARRACKS

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 7/19/2017. (lmt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROWENA MOLSON,
Plaintiff,

17cv103 (Erie)
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________________
ROWENA MOLSON,
Plaintiff,

17cv104 (Erie)
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
GLEN PAKOV,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________________
ROWENA MOLSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PB 18 GIRARD STATE POLICE
BARRACKS,
Defendant.

17cv108 (Erie)
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Before the Court are three separate Complaints filed in three separate cases by the same
pro se Plaintiff, Rowena Molson. The Court granted Molson the right to proceed in forma
pauperis in each of these three cases. However, for the reasons set forth below, each of the three
cases will be dismissed as this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over any of them.
1. Case Number 17cv103 (ERIE)
Molson v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
In this case, Molson alleges that she is proficient in the English language and appears to
be seeking a reversal of a March 7, 2017 decision issued by U.S. Immigration and Citizenship
Services (“USCIS”), denying Molson’s application for naturalization. The denial was
predicated, in part, on Molson’s inability to achieve a passing score on the English understanding
portion of the naturalization test. The decision issued by USCIS noted that Molson was
interviewed by an Officer on two separate occasions, but neither time – even after repeating and
rephrasing the questions – was Molson able to respond meaningfully to those questions.
This letter which accompanied the USCIS denial decision provided Molson with
information akin to an appeal process. The denial decision indicates that if Molson believed she
could “overcome the grounds for the denial” (meaning her inability to achieve a passing score on
the English understanding portion of the naturalization test), she had to submit a request for a
hearing (Form N-336) within thirty days. The decision letter indicates and that if Molson did not
file such a form, the decision would become final. This process is outlined in 8 U.S.C.A.§ 1447
and in 8 C.F.R. § 336.2.
If Molson did file the requisite form noted above, USCIS would have 180 days from the
date upon which the Form was filed to schedule a review hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(b). Because
there is no indication suggesting whether or not Molson filed an appeal, and because 180 days
2

has not yet passed from the date of the original decision, let alone the date that Molson may have
filed an appeal with the USCIS, this matter is not ripe. See 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(d) (A USCIS
determination denying an application for naturalization under Section 335(a) of the Act shall not
be subject to judicial review until the applicant has exhausted those administrative remedies
available to the applicant under section 336 of the Act.).
Accordingly, until all administrative remedies are exhausted, this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over Moslon’s Complaint and this case will be dismissed and closed.
2. Case Number 17cv104 (ERIE)
Molson v. Pakov
In this breach of contract case, Molson primarily alleges that her landlord owes her the
return of her security deposit in the amount of $420.00. However, in this Complaint, Molson
also notes that her landlord’s address is in Erie, Pennsylvania (as is hers). Because both Molson
and Pakov are residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and this matter does not reach
the minimum threshold of $75,000.00, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. For
this reason, the Court will dismiss this Complaint and close this case. 1
3. Case Number 17cv108 (ERIE)
Molson v. PB 18 Girard State Police Barracks
In this case, Molson alleges that in 2006 and 2014, she encountered police officers at her
home and in her neighborhood, respectively. It appears that at least during one, if not both, of
these instances, Molson was arrested and was found guilty. She appears to be seeking a reversal
of these “verdicts.”
The Court will dismiss this case for the following reasons: First, the Defendant in this
case is a State Police Barrack – not a person(s), or a state agency – and the building from which a

This Complaint should have been filed in Pennsylvania’s Court of Common Pleas for Erie County, not in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
1

3

group of police officers work, cannot be sued. Second, regardless of whether Molson is
attempting to assert any discernable Section 1983 civil rights violation (such as a false
imprisonment, false arrest, or an excessive force claim arising from either her 2006 or 2014
police encounter), she is time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations. Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994). Further, even if the Court considers the various
documents filed by Molson at ECF 5 and ECF 5-1, as an “Amended Complaint,” dismissal of
this matter is still required. The two-year statute of limitations serves as an absolute bar to any
civil rights claims she may be attempting to assert, and thus, any amendment is futile. See, In re
Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Among the grounds
that could justify a denial of leave to amend are . . . futility. . . . ‘Futility’ means that the
complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”).
Accordingly, this Complaint will also be dismissed and the case closed.

4

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 4) in case number 1:17-cv-00103 is DISMISSED; and

2.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this CASE CLOSED.

3.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 5) in case number 1:17-cv-00104 is DISMISSED; and

4.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this CASE CLOSED.

5.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 4) in case number 1:17-cv-00108 is DISMISSED; and

6.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this CASE CLOSED.

s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:

Rowena Molson
5216 West Ridge Road
Apartment C
Erie, PA 16506

5