From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Ohrman

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 11, 2023
Civil Action 2:22-cv-1005 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:22-cv-1005

12-11-2023

DAVON L. SMITH, Plaintiff v. NICHOLAS OHRMAN SGT CO2, and JOSPH TREMPUS, Deputy Superintendent/ Facility Manager, Defendants


Schwab District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ECF NO. 62

RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Nicholas Ohrman and Josph Trempus (ECF No. 62) be granted as unopposed and that Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

II. REPORT

A. Factual Allegations

In his pro se Amended Complaint (ECF No. 59), Plaintiff Davon L. Smith (“Plaintiff') alleges that Defendant Nicholas Ohrman (“Ohrman”) sexually assaulted him on September 6, 2021, and that Defendant Josph Trempus (“Trempus”) was aware of Ohrman's predatory behavior and failed to protect him from the assault. ECF No. 59, ¶¶ 7-12. Liberally construed, Count I of the Amended Complaint asserts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against both Defendants for violation of Plaintiff s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. Count II asserts a claim against both Defendants for violation of his rights under Article 1 § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Count III alleges both a failure to protect claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state law negligence claim against Defendant Trempus.

B. Legal Standards

Where the pleadings are closed and demonstrate both the absence of any material issues of fact and a party's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, that party may move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 595 F.Supp.2d 532, 537 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290-91 (3d Cir. 1988)). When reviewing a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c), the court views all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. The difference between a Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) is purely procedural and there is “no material difference in the applicable legal standards.” Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 223 n.2 (3d Cir. 2004).

When considering pro se pleadings such as Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, the court must employ less stringent standards than it would when judging the work product of an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The court should liberally construe the factual allegations of the pro se complaint and “apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.” Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)). See also Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) (“Since this is a § 1983 action, the [pro se] plaintiffs are entitled to relief if their complaint sufficiently alleges deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution.”). Notwithstanding this liberality, pro se litigants are not relieved of their obligation to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. See, e.g, Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002); Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1996).

Furthermore, when dismissing a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the court must give the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended pleading to cure deficiencies unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007).

C. Analysis

Defendants Ohrman and Trempus move for judgment on the pleadings only as to Count II, Plaintiffs claim under the Pennsylvania Constitution. See ECF No. 63 (Defendants' supporting brief) at 3-4. Citing both Third Circuit and Pennsylvania state court decisions, they argue that Pennsylvania does not recognize a private right of action for damages based on a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Ibn-Sadiika v. Cnty. of Allegheny Dep't of Court Records, 647 Fed.Appx. 60, 62 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Jones v. City of Philadelphia, 890 A.2d 1188, 1208 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (“[N]either Pennsylvania statutory authority, nor appellate case law has authorized the award of monetary damages for a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”)); Pocono Mountain Charter Sch. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 442 Fed.Appx. 681, 688 (3d Cir. 2011). In his one-paragraph responsive brief (ECF No. 65), Plaintiff concedes that his research has revealed the same, and he agrees that his claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution should be dismissed. The Court agrees that case law precludes Plaintiffs claim for damages against the Defendants under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Therefore, Count II of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 59) should be dismissed with prejudice. Any attempt to amend this claim would be futile as a matter of law.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Nicholas Ohrman and Josph Trempus (ECF No. 62) be granted. Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

IV. NOTICE

In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation to file objections. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.


Summaries of

Smith v. Ohrman

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 11, 2023
Civil Action 2:22-cv-1005 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2023)
Case details for

Smith v. Ohrman

Case Details

Full title:DAVON L. SMITH, Plaintiff v. NICHOLAS OHRMAN SGT CO2, and JOSPH TREMPUS…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 11, 2023

Citations

Civil Action 2:22-cv-1005 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2023)