MOSURA v. HUBER et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 3/3/14. (bdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LORI MOSURA,
Plaintiff,

v.
JEFF HUBER ET AL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.2: 14-cv-00 108
Judge Mark R. Hornak

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge
In this civil action, the Plaintiff, Lori Mosura, sought and was granted pennission to file
her pro se Complaint in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to the command
of that statute, this Court is obligated to review that Complaint to confinn that it states a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
This Court recently examined and applied the rules established by that statute, the
Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals for such a review. First, the Court is to consider the
stated financial status of the Plaintiff, and her eligibility for IFP status. The Court has perfonned
that review, and has concluded that she is. Second, I am to consider whether the Complaint is
"frivolous". In this context, that means that the Court is to apply the same standard that it would
apply in evaluating a Motion to Dismiss a civil complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), giving
due consideration that as a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff is held to a somewhat less precise and
demanding pleading standard. See Detar et al. v. United States Government, No. 13-1499,2014
WL 517715, *1-*3 (W.D. Pa. February 7,2014).

In this consideration, the Court must determine if the Complaint contains sufficient
factual allegations, beyond simple conclusions, that would support the Court's exercise of Article
III subject matter jurisdiction, and which set forth a plausible claim for relief. ld. While some
added latitude is provided to pro se litigants, such a Complaint must allege sufficient facts to
support a cognizable claim for legal relief, whether the pro se plaintiff has specifically identified
the applicable law or not. Where, as here, the Complaint alleges one or more civil rights
violations, if it nonetheless falls short of these standards, the Court must grant the Plaintiff at
least one (1) opportunity to amend the Complaint, unless it concludes that doing so would be
futile.ld.
When these standards are applied here, it is apparent that the Complaint falls far short of
the mark, even allowing for the Plaintiffs pro se status. In her pleading, Plaintiff sues two
facially private actors, Jeff Huber and "Harbor Point Housing." She nonetheless brings the suit
alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, using 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the vehicle for
doing so, and also alleges non-specified violations of Pennsylvania state law. She says that Mr.
Huber disregarded the "Code of Federal Regulations", "HUD Regulations", "Pennsylvania
statutes, civil and criminal", "Order of a District Magistrate", and the Fourteenth Amendment.
ECF No. 1-1 at ~1-2.
This all appears to be related to some sort of eviction or other dispossession of the
Plaintiff from her premises. ECF No. 1-1 at ~3. Plaintiff alleges, but in only the most conclusory
way, that Mr. Huber did all of this in violation of "HUD Regulations", and "under color of state
law", but provides no flesh on those pleading bones as to what sort of regulations, how/why they
are at all applicable to this situation, and most importantly, how/why Mr. Huber was acting under
the color of state law, given her other allegations that he was acting directly contrary to all sorts

2

of state, federal and local laws. ECF No. 1-1 at '114. She also alleges that he was acting as an
agent of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, and/or the Beaver County Housing Authority, without
providing any factual support for such a statement, or an inference for such conclusions. She
then goes on to allege that Mr. Huber acted in violation of a number of Pennsylvania state
criminal laws, along with the federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, but it would
appear to the Court that none of them provide for a separate civil remedy.
In conformity with the direction of our Court of appeals in Grayson v. Mayview State
Hasp., 293

f. 3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002), the Complaint will be dismissed but without prejudice, and

the Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend her Complaint to state a claim for relief, with such
amended Complaint to be filed on or before March 24, 2014. In the meantime, the Clerk of this
Court shall mark this case administratively closed. Should a timely amended Complaint be filed,
the case will be reopened, and will then proceed apace. Should Plaintiff fail to do so, the case
will then be dismissed with prejudice without further notice.
An appropriate Order will issue.

Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge
Dated: March 3, 2014
cc: All counsel of record

3