ROYER v. PENNSYLVANIA
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 7/15/11. (map)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHIL ROYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 11-0318
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM
July
Gary L. Lancaster,
Chief Judge.
This
is an action in civil rights.
l ),
2011
plaintiff,
Phil
Royer, proceeding pro se, asserts what we construe to be a claim
pursuant
to
section
("section 1983"),
1983
of
42 U.S.C.
§
the
1983.
Civil
Rights
In short,
Act
of
1871
Royer contends
that pennsylvania law violates his Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth,
and
Fourteenth
Amendment
rights
under
the
United
States
Constitution by making him ineligible to possess a firearm under
federal law.
Royer seeks damages sufficient to compensate him
"for the permanent loss of [his] gun rights."
Defendant,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Royer's
claims are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment
complaint
a
fails
to
granted [doc. no. 7].
motion.
state
claim
upon
and that
which
relief
Royer's
can
be
For the reasons that follow, we grant the
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 23,
Pennsylvania's
Uniform
without a license,
law,
because
while
2008,
Firearms
18 Pa.C. S.
Royer
corruni tting
did
this
not
degree.
Compare
Pennsylvania,
up
to
(5)
his
years
offense
exceeding one
year,
under
law,
federal
Royer ,
corruni t
his
crime
was
to
the
Although
that
Royer became
U.S.C.
has
18
punishable
the
United
by
Pa.C.S.
this
fee
Ninth
for
and
a
is
his
a
In
Royer's
firearms
Tenth
Article
Thus,
rights
Constitution
by
enforcing
his
(~
a
federal
prohibits him from possessing a gun,
that
sanction
for
21
law
Second
Article
I,
claim,
he
and
also
rights
his
rights
United
States
the
Pennsylvania
that
permanently
when Pennsylvania law does
carrying
2
the
to
8-17).
the
of
term
according
and
(~25)
of
a
firearm
Second Amendment
license
Section
for
under
primary
Amendments
I,
106(b) (6).
§
carry a
Constitution
violated
and
impose
as
(a) (2).
imprisonment
922 (g) (1).
§
States
Constitution
not
violation
felony of the
&
ineligible to
violated
Pennsylvania
by charging a
under
firearm
classified
6106(a) (1)
§§
Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
alleges
criminal
instead of as a
Pa.C.S.
a
Under Pennsylvania
another
imprisonment.
was
18
Pennsylvania
Amendment
carrying
6106 (a) (2) .
degree,
18
by
a misdemeanor of the first degree is punishable by
five
Because
Act
§
offense,
misdemeanor of the first
third
Royer was found guilty of violating
an
unlicensed
firearm
(<][19-20) .
Royer
subjected him to
the
Eighth
cruel
Section
contends
and unusual
Amendment
I,
Article
further
to
13
the
of
States
Pennsylvania
causing the permanent loss of his gun rights
Additionally,
numerous
allegations
this action,
in
this
Royer
against
has
entities
in violation of
Constitution
and
Constitution,
by
that
in
are
his
not
complaint
parties
to
and various claims that are not legally cognizable
proceeding.
He
has
(<][22).
included
For
instance,
Royer
Clause challenge to the federal stat ute,
30) .
Pennsylvania
punishment
United
the
that
also
makes
numerous
due
mentions
18 U. S. C.
process
a
Commerce
922
§
challenges
(<][<][18,
to
the
proceedings held in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
related to the instant
for abuse of a corpse
a
Fourth
connection
These
Amendment
with
(<][<][27-29,
challenge
both
allegations
firearms
are
of
offense,
31-35,
to
those
unrelated
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and to his
37-39,
43-53), as well as
various
searches
criminal
cases
to
Royer's
conviction
suit
conducted
(<][36,
in
40-42).
against
the
are not properly raised apart from
the state criminal cases, and are thus being stricken sua sponte
as immaterial and impertinent pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12 (f) (1) .
3
II.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has moved to dismiss
Royer's
complaint
under
12(b) (1)
and
12(b)(6).
12 (b) (1)
is
filed
"facial"
challenge
Where,
prior
to
to
the
Cardio-Med.
Associates,
F.2d 68,
(3d Cir.
75
Federal
1983).
of
here,
a
as
an
answer,
court I s
Ltd.
Rules
v.
Civil
motion
it
is
subject matter
Crozer-Chester
Procedure
under
Rule
considered
a
jurisdiction.
Med.
Ctr.,
721
In reviewing a facial challenge,
a
court must dismiss a plaintiff's claim if the allegations on the
face of the complaint,
most
favorable
to
taken as
the
true,
non-moving
and viewed in
party
do
not
the
light
allege
facts
sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court.
399
Li
The
v.
U.S.
Postal
disposition
561
(3d Cir.
2005);
33
F.3d 259,
260
(3d Cir.
1994).
motion
purely
legal
Oep't
reviewing
dismiss
sufficient
of Veterans Affairs,
a
claim
a
motion
if
factual matter,
the
under
Rule
"complaint
426
F.3d
a
court
129 S.Ct.
U.S.
Corp.
v.
under either rule,
Twombly,
550
12 (b) (6),
[does
accepted as true,
to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Atlantic
a
is
(3d Cir. 2005).
In
must
such
Cudjoe v.
determination.
241, 244
of
558,
a
Servo
F.3d
In
to
not]
contain
'state a
Ashcroft v.
1937,
1949
(2009)
U.S.
544,
570
claim
Iqbal,
(quoting Bell
(2007)).
Thus,
we look to the face of the complaint and take
4
its allegations as true.
Because Royer is proceeding pro se,
must construe his
complaint
sua
such
sponte
Parker,
unless
363
F.3d 229,
213 F.3d 113, 116-17
liberally and grant
amendment
234-36
would
(3d Cir.
be
leave to amend
futile.
2004);
we
Alston
Shane v.
v.
Fauver,
(3d Cir. 2000).
III. DISCUSSION
Under
Constitution,
court
by
state.
F.3d
190,
including
195
Lavia v.
(3d Cir.
62,
jurisdictional
subject
can
citizens,
(2001);
528 U.S.
Regents,
Corp.,
Amendment
to
the
United
citizens
of
matter
immunity;
lost
only
or
(2 )
pursuant to a
Commonwealth of
2000)
72-73
bar
(citing
(2000)).
which
jurisdiction."
77 F.3d 690,
be
States
that
Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett,
363-64
"a
Eleventh
states and their agents cannot be sued in federal
private
356,
is
the
694
(I)
the
Congress
deprives
(3d Cir.
abrogated
5
v.
Florida
federal
v.
Bd.
the
courts
Allegheny
1996).
224
of
of
Ludlum
Such immunity
has
waived
states'
legislative power.
224 F.3d at 195; Seminole Tribe of Florida v.
44, 55-56 (1996).
Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth
valid exercise of i ts
531 U.S.
State sovereign immunity
Blanciak
693 n.2,
if:
Kimel
same
Florida,
its
immunity
Lavia,
517 U.S.
The
Pennsylvania
General
Assembly
has,
by
statute,
expressly declined to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Pa.C.S.
8521(b)
§
42
("Nothing contained in this subchapter shall
be construed to waive the immunity of the Commonwealth from suit
in
Federal
courts
guaranteed
by
the
Eleventh
Amendment...").
Congress did not abrogate the states' sovereign immunity through
enactment of 42 U.S.C.
345
(1979)
see also Atkin v.
i
Cir.
May 3,
Appx.
20,
Eleventh
1983.
§
2011);
25
Cir.
Amendment
Commonwealth,
nor
Johnson,
Hurst v.
(3d
Quern v.
immunity
Because
has
by
440 U.S.
2011 WL 1654665,
City of Rehoboth
2008).
abrogated
Jordan,
been
Beach,
the
we
*1
(3d
288
Fed.
Commonwealth's
neither
Congress,
332,
waived
have
by
no
the
subject
matter jurisdiction over Royer's claims against Pennsylvan
Furthermore,
because
neither
a
state,
nor
a
state
agency, is a "person" for purposes of section 1983, Royer cannot
state
a
claim
upon
Commonweal th or
which
its
relief
agents.
Will
can
v.
be
granted
Michigan
against
Dep't
of
the
State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
As
with
prejudice,
amendment,
futile.
we grant the motion to dismiss.
and
because
Foman v.
Har lee Corp.
251
such,
(3d Cir.
v.
without
any
the
amendment
Davis,
371
U.S.
opportunity
of
this
178,
2007);
Grayson v.
(1962);
Inc.,
Mayview State
6
a
complaint
182
Pote Concrete Contractors,
for
We do
so
curative
would
be
Fletcher-
482 F. 3d 247,
Hosp.,
293
F.3d
..
"
103,
108
(3d
Cir.
2002).
Royer
has
been
Commonwealth
is
jurisdictionally
immune
barred.
jurisdictional defect.
"person"
wi thin
from
the
No
his
the
suit,
making
amendment
In addition,
meaning
that
As detailed above,
complaint is against the Commonwealth.
of
clear
could
the
claim
overcome
that
the Commonwealth is not a
section
1983,
making
it
impossible for Royer to amend his complaint in order to state a
valid section 1983 claim.
in
Royer's
dismissal
complaint,
with
Thus, given the nature of the defects
any
prejudice
amendment
would
be
appropriate
under
the
futile,
making
circumstances,
even though Royer is proceeding pro se.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
we dismiss Royer's complaint,
with prejudice.
An
appropriate
order will
with this memorandum.
7
be
filed
contemporaneously
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHIL ROYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 11-0318
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
AND
ORDERED
NOW,
that
the
C:ay
this
of
July,
2011,
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania's
it
is
HEREBY
motion
to
dismiss [doc. no. 7] is GRANTED, with prejudice.
~
cc:
All Counsel of Record
_____________________ ' C.J.
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?