Opinion
Civil Action 21-1252
05-03-2022
LYNNE L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; STEPHEN ZAPPALA, District Attorney's Office; RICHARD BYERS, Investigator for District Attorney's Office; MAGISTRATE LTNDA ZURCCO; RAYMOND BITAR; EUGENE F. RIAZZI, JR., Magistrate; and ANTHONY DELUCA, Magistrate, Defendants.
Arthur J. Schwab, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Re: ECF Nos. 20, 23 and 30
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lynne Thompson ("Plaintiff), a frequent litigator in this Court, commenced this pro se action on September 17, 2021 with the filing of a Complaint. ECF No. 1. While the Complaint is difficult to understand, it appears that Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of her arrest, prosecution, and bond in a pending state court criminal proceeding.
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Allegheny County District Attorney's Office (the "DA's Office"), Richard Byers ("Byers") and Steven Zappala ("Zappala") (collectively, the "DA Defendants"), ECF No. 20; a Motion to Dismiss filed by Magisterial District Judges Anthony Deluca ("Judge Deluca"), Eugene F. Riazza, Jr. ("Judge Riazza"), and Linda Zucco ("Judge Zucco") (collectively, the "Magisterial District Judges"), ECF No. 23; and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Raymond Bitar ("Bitar"), ECF No. 30.
Plaintiff misspells this individual's name as "Zurrco" in her Complaint. See ECF No. 23.
For the reasons below, it is respectfully recommended that the Motions to Dismiss be denied without prejudice, and that Plaintiff be required to submit an Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court's instructions.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Factual Allegations
Plaintiffs Complaint is difficult to understand. She claims that Defendants are responsible for her being placed in Allegheny County Jail on a "bogus warrant," which required her to pay an attorney and bond. ECF No. 1 at 9.
Plaintiff appears to claim that Byers, an investigator for the DA's Office, obtained a warrant for her arrest from Judge Zucco. Id. at 6, 8. She alleges that Byers lied about something in the process of obtaining her arrest warrant, and that summons were served at an address where he knew she did not live. Id. Plaintiff then "turned herself in on the bench warrant." Id. It is not clear what Byers allegedly lied about, or why she claims that her warrant was "bogus."
With respect to Bitar, she claims that he is an attorney who called her "sometime in May 2020." Id. at 8. She alleges:
This all started with Raymond Bitar, who is prejudice [sic], and acted like he was a judge by directing Lynne to come to his office and bring I.D. with her, to prove who she was, for she was not going to buy his brother-in-law's house. He also used intimidation and harassment by telling Lynne she better come to his office. The attorney for Lynne 5s company called him and he hung up on him, and would not return his call, once Lynne reported what Bitar said and what he was trying to do.Id. at 6-7.
Although Plaintiff claims "this all started" with Bitar, it is not clear how Bitar's attempt to contact her allegedly relates (if at all) to the "bogus warrant" at issue.
Plaintiff also sues three magisterial district judges: Judge Zucco, Judge Riazza and Judge DuLuca. Regarding these defendants, Plaintiff vaguely claims that Judge Zucco and Defendant Judge DeLuca did not "follow procedure," stating that "this bogus case" should have been heard in Pittsburgh and her hearing date was changed. Id. She claims that Judge Riazzi wrongfully set a bond, and there should not have been a warrant. Id.
Plaintiff also brings claims against the DA's Office and Zappala, the District Attorney. Plaintiff claims there was a "failure to supervise" and invokes respondeat superior. Id. at 8. However, she does not include any factual allegations as to these defendants.
2. Legal Claims
Plaintiff asserts that she is bringing the following claims: Abuse of Power; Falsity of Legal Documents; Lied Under Oath; Procedural Due Process; Intimidation; violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law); Official Oppression; Loss of Equal Protection; Loss of Due Process; Abuse of Process; Malicious Prosecution; and Conspiracy. Id. at 3.
3. Motions to Dismiss
a. The DA Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20)
The DA Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on November 12, 2021. ECF Nos. 20 and 21. In support of the Motion to Dismiss, the DA Defendants argue (1) that the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); (2) that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for the specific causes of action that she pleads; (3) her Complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8; and (4) that Byers is protected by qualified immunity. ECF No. 21.
b. Magisterial District Judges' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23)
The Magisterial District Judges filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on November 19, 2021. ECF Nos. 23 and 24. In support of their Motion to Dismiss, the Magisterial District Judges argue that (1) for official capacity claims, they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and are not "persons" who are subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (2) for personal capacity claims, they are entitled to judicial immunity; (3) Plaintiffs request for equitable relief is improper because it violates principles of federalism and comity; (4) the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); and (5) Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claim for relief. ECF No. 24 at 1-8.
c. Bitar's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30)
Bitar filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on December 6, 2021. ECF Nos. 30 and 31. In support of his Motion to Dismiss, Bitar argues that (1) Plaintiff cannot bring claims against him under § 1983 because he is a private individual who was not acting under color of state law; (2) she does not plead facts demonstrating he took part in any conspiracy under § 1983; and (3) Plaintiff simply repeats terms such as "abuse of power" and "conspiracy" without pleading any cognizable claim against him. ECF No. 31 at 2-7.
d. Plaintiffs Response
The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the DA Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by December 13, 2021, to the Magisterial District Judges' Motion to Dismiss by December 22, 2021, and to Bitar's Motion to Dismiss by January 8, 2022. ECF Nos. 22, 25 and 33.
Based on Plaintiffs repeated requests, the Court extended Plaintiffs deadline to file a response five times. ECF Nos. 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45 and 48. In its fifth and final order extending Plaintiffs deadline to respond, the Court notified Plaintiff that she had until April 7, 2022 to respond, and that no further extensions would be granted. ECF No. 48. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Response to any of the Motions to Dismiss.
B. LEGAL STANDARD
In assessing the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court, however, need not accept bald assertions or inferences drawn by the plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. See Cal. Pub. Employees7 Retirement Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist, 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor must the Court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that a complaint is properly dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) where it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Id. at 570, or where the factual content does not allow the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding that, under Twombly, "labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" do not suffice but, rather, the complaint "must allege facts suggestive of [the proscribed] conduct" and that are sufficient "to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary elementfs] of his claim").
Pro se pleadings, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will liberally construe his Complaint and employ less stringent standards than when judging the work product of an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
C. DISCUSSION
Upon review, Plaintiffs Complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Her allegations are not sufficiently coherent for the Court to determine whether she brings any potentially viable claim which is subject to this Court's jurisdiction. Considering Plaintiff s pro se status, and in the interests of fairness, the Court should provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to re-plead her Complaint. Because Plaintiff will be submitting an Amended Complaint, the Court should deny the pending Motions to Dismiss without prejudice.
In submitting her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff should comply with the following instructions and the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Instructions for Filing Amended Complaint
1. Caption and Heading
Plaintiff shall title her pleading "Amended Complaint." She must place her full name at the top of the Amended Complaint and then list the full names of each defendant.
2. Jurisdiction
Plaintiff must inform the Court why the case should be heard in federal court rather than state court or some other forum. If Plaintiff s action is generally one for a violation of civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will normally be the basis for the claim. In order for Plaintiffs action to be heard in federal court under Section 1983, she must be able to show that the defendant(s) at the time of the claims were acting under the authority or color of law.
3. Parties
As the person initiating the lawsuit, Plaintiff must identify herself as the "plaintiff." Also, for each defendant, Plaintiff should list his or her current address, if available, and a description of his or her position or employment.
4. Statement of Claim
Plaintiff must specifically state what rights under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States have been violated. It is improper for Plaintiff to merely list constitutional rights or federal rights. Plaintiff must provide a description of how each of the defendants violated each of her rights.
5. Statement of Facts
Plaintiff must provide specific details of precisely how her rights were allegedly violated. Plaintiff should note that, in civil rights cases, conclusory and vague allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Wherever possible, this description should include references to relevant dates, times, and locations. It should explain to the Court what happened by specifically describing each defendant's behavior or action and how that behavior, action, or lack of action resulted in the alleged violations. Plaintiff should be specific about the particulars of the event, each defendant's misconduct, and how such misconduct allegedly resulted in a violation or denial of the civil right at issue.
Where the Amended Complaint includes more than one incident, Plaintiff should clearly distinguish between the incidents by preparing a separate description-usually a paragraph-for each incident. Each incident should be identified as a separate count, and each count must include appropriate facts in support of the claims made in the count. Each incident must be clearly and specifically described; it should, whenever possible, include the relevant time, date, and location. Each incident description should clearly identify the relevant defendant(s) and what each defendant's role in the incident was.
The Amended Complaint must include all claims that Plaintiff seeks to assert. Plaintiff should not refer back to prior versions of her complaint.
6. Injury
Plaintiff must state as specifically as possible the actual injury she suffered from the action of the defendants. Simply stating that her rights have been violated is insufficient.
7. Request for Relief
Plaintiff must describe for the Court the relief she is seeking as a result of this lawsuit. The relief requested must be related to the injury she suffered.
8. Declaration under Penalty of Perjury
Plaintiff must sign her Amended Complaint and file it with the Clerk of Court. When doing so, Plaintiff is making a declaration under law to the Court that everything in her Amended Complaint is true. Plaintiff should realize that the Court can order sanctions or penalties for the filing of complaints and pleadings that are frivolous, without merit, based on false or misleading information, etc.
D. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 20, 23 and 30, should be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff should be required to file an Amended Complaint within 21 days, in accordance with this Court's instructions and the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff fails to do so, Defendants should then be permitted to renew their Motions to Dismiss as appropriate.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.