Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-01243
10-06-2020
JORDAN F. HEATH-HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. JORDAN HEATH TRUST, et al., Defendants.
(BRANN, J.)
() REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the Court is a complaint filed by pro se prisoner-Plaintiff Jordan F. Heath-Hamilton (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") on July 20, 2020. (Doc. 1) In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks $100,000.00 per hour for "being placed [on] public display without just compensation. (Doc. 1, at 4). At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview ("SCI-Rockview"), located in Centre County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1, at 2).
The Court has conducted its statutorily-mandated screening of the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons provided herein, it is recommended that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the Complaint and that Plaintiff not be granted further leave to amend. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Heath-Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated the instant action by filing a complaint in this matter on July 20, 2020. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that on July 2, 2018, "the persons of Jordan Heath, Trust agreed to pay my persons $100,000.00 an hour for the public display of our private persons being used and placed at public display but refused to pay what is owed nunc pro tunc." (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff seeks an award of payment to compensate him for his services. (Doc. 1, at 4).
Heath-Hamilton also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5), which was granted. (Doc. 13).
On August 18, 2020, the undersigned determined that the Complaint failed to state a claim over which the Court hold jurisdiction and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 12; Doc. 13). Any amended pleading was due by September 17, 2020. (Doc. 13). On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed "Exhibit (A)" which contained a signed declaration of the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as various quotes pertaining to an affidavit being all that is necessary to make a prima facie case, belief being given to individuals who are sworn in, and equity being that which is done as "ought to have been done." (Doc. 15). This document does not resemble an amended complaint, as it contains no claims and reflects no request for relief. (Doc. 15). Therefore, the undersigned will proceed on the merits of Plaintiff's original Complaint. (Doc. 1). The matter is now before the Court pursuant to its statutory obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to screen the Complaint and dismiss it if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. DISCUSSION
A. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is obligated to screen a civil complaint in which a prisoner is seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); James v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 230 F. App'x 195, 197 (3d Cir. 2007) (not precedential). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court has a similar obligation with respect to actions brought in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see generally Banks v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 568 F. Supp. 2d 579, 587-89 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (summarizing prisoner litigation screening procedures and standards). In this case, because Vega is suing government officials and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, both provisions apply. In performing its mandatory screening function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell v. Dodrill, 696 F. Supp. 2d 454, 471 (M.D. Pa. 2010); Banks, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 588.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To assess the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must first take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, then identify mere conclusions which are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and finally determine whether the complaint's factual allegations, taken as true, could plausibly satisfy the elements of the legal claim. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as "documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
After recognizing the required elements which make up the legal claim, a court should "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff must provide some factual ground for relief, which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, courts "need not credit a complaint's 'bald assertions' or 'legal conclusions' . . . ." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor need the court assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
A court must then determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations give rise to a plausible claim for relief. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010). The court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261. This "presumption of truth attaches only to those allegations for which there is sufficient factual matter to render them plausible on their face." Schuchardt v. President of the United States, 839 F.3d 336, 347 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The plausibility determination is context-specific and does not impose a heightened pleading requirement. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347.
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a "short and plain" statement of a cause of action. There is no requirement that the pleading be specific or probable. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347 (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d at 224, 233-234 (3d Cir. 2008). Rule 8(a) requires a "showing that 'the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545).
With the aforementioned standards in mind, a document filed pro se is "to be liberally construed." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Further, the Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
B. LACK OF JURISDICTION
Plaintiff's claim arises from an alleged breach of contract. (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants agreed to pay him a certain amount of money in exchange for his "private persons being used and placed at public display." (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff avers that Defendants "refused to pay what is owed." (Doc. 1, at 3).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Though Plaintiff claims certain Constitutional rights were violated, the factual allegations of his Complaint make clear the he is asserting a state law breach of contract claim. (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff was allegedly wronged when he formed an agreement with Defendants and Defendants "refused to pay what is owed." (Doc. 1, at 3). As such, the District Court may exercise jurisdiction over this claim only if diversity jurisdiction is properly plead.
"Federal district courts are vested with original jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between 'citizens of different States.'" McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). Here, though the amount in controversy ($100,000 per hour) is sufficient to meet the diversity jurisdiction threshold, there is no indication in Plaintiff's Complaint that the action is between citizens of different states. (Doc. 1); see McCann, 458 F.3d at 286. Because Plaintiff alleges facts which would support only a state law breach of contract claim, and because Plaintiff has not plead facts which would support diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff must bring his claim in state court rather than Federal court. See Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 F. App'x 794 (3d Cir. 2015).
C. LEAVE TO AMEND
The Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). In this case, it is now clear that granting an amendment would be futile and inequitable. Heath-Hamilton failed to respond with an operative complaint when the Court granted him leave to amend. (Doc. 13). It would be inequitable to delay this matter any longer, as the passing of time decays the quality of evidence and the credibility of memory. As such, it is recommended that leave to amend not be granted. III. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that Heath-Hamilton's Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice, that final judgment be entered in favor of Defendants, and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.
Dated: October 6, 2020
/s/ _________
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated October 6, 2020.
Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Dated: October 6, 2020
/s/ _________
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge