Opinion
Civil No. 3:16-CV-844
08-16-2016
JOHN WALSH, III, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL CARDONICK, et al., Defendants
(Judge Kosik)
( ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Statement of Facts and of the Case
The plaintiff, John Walsh is a frequent, albeit frequently unsuccessful, pro se litigant. Indeed, Walsh is the author of more than 30 quixotic pro se lawsuits filed with this Court during the past several years. These lawsuits are often varied in their form, and eccentric in their content, but frequently share a common, frivolous quality. Moreover, upon scrutiny Walsh's lawsuits often are little more than odd polemics reflecting random observations on life by Walsh, polemics which masquerade as litigation. Finally, of late some of Walsh's lawsuits have involved disputes between the plaintiff and various local health clubs like the local YMCA or the Jewish Community Center, mundane matters which in Walsh's mind assume a constitutional dimension.
This is one such case. In this case, Walsh, who describes himself as a "Customer, Resident, Citizen and Taxpayer," sues the Jewish Community Center, its executive director and its board of directors. (Doc. 1.) The precise nature of Walsh's claim against these defendants is murky, although Walsh's complaint seems to acknowledge that his membership privileges at this facility were withdrawn after he failed to make membership fee payments. (Id.) After conceding this fact, a fact which would seem to justify denying him the privileges of this facility, Walsh indulges in some Semitic stereotyping before demanding $50,000 in damages as a result of what he alleges are civil rights violations and a breach of contract. (Id.)
Along with this complaint Walsh has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2.), which we will grant. The defendants, in turn, have filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. (Doc. 4.) For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standards Governing Sufficiency of Civil Complaints
This Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by plaintiffs given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Specifically, the Court must assess whether a pro se complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, since Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In addition, when reviewing in forma pauperis complaints, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) specifically enjoins us to "dismiss the complaint at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This statutory text mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a complaint should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
With respect to this benchmark standard for legal sufficiency of a complaint, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly noted the evolving standards governing pleading practice in federal court, stating that:
Standards of pleading have been in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years. Beginning with the Supreme Court's opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) continuing with our opinion in Phillips [v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008)] and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal -U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a p[arty] to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009).
In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court "need not credit a complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Additionally a court need not "assume that a ... p[arty] can prove facts that the ... p[arty] has not alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). As the Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), in order to state a valid cause of action a party must provide some factual grounds for relief which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of actions will not do." Id. at 555. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.
In keeping with the principles of Twombly, the Supreme Court has underscored that a trial court must assess whether a complaint states facts upon which relief can be granted when ruling on a motion to dismiss. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Supreme Court held that, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court should "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. at 679. According to the Supreme Court, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678. Rather, in conducting a review of the adequacy of complaint, the Supreme Court has advised trial courts that they must:
[B]egin by identifying pleadings that because they are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.Id. at 679.
Thus, following Twombly and Iqbal a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the party's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated:
[A]fter Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The district court must accept all of the . . . well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a district court must then determine whether the facts alleged . . . are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the p[arty's] entitlement to relief. A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts.Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11.
In practice, consideration of the legal sufficiency of a complaint entails a three-step analysis: "First, the court must 'tak[e] note of the elements a p[arty] must plead to state a claim.' Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947. Second, the court should identify allegations that, 'because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.' Id. at 1950. Finally, 'where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.' Id." Santiago v. Warminster Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).
In addition to these pleading rules, a civil complaint must comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which defines what a complaint should say and provides that:
(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a pro se plaintiff's complaint must recite factual allegations which are 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.
Judged against these legal benchmarks, for the reasons set forth below, Walsh's complaint is fatally flawed and should be dismissed.
B. The Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted
In this case, our review of this compliant reveals that Walsh's pleadings fail as a civil rights action on a host of grounds.
First, Walsh's complaint violates the basic rule of pleading which requires that "a district court . . . determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief.' In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11. In addition, dismissal of this complaint is also warranted because the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8's basic injunction that: "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Dismissal of this complaint is appropriate for several reasons. First, the complaint names numerous individual and institutional defendants but for the most part contains no well-pleaded factual averments relating to these defendants in the body of the complaint. This style of pleading is patently inadequate since it fails to allege facts that give rise to a plausible claim for relief. Hudson v. City of McKeesport, 241 F. App'x 519 (3d Cir. 2007)(affirming dismissal of defendant who was only named in caption of case.)
Moreover, it is also well-settled that: "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each averment be 'concise, and direct,' Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)." Scibelli v. Lebanon County, 219 F. App'x 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007). Thus, when a complaint is "illegible or incomprehensible", id., or when a complaint "is also largely unintelligible," Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 F. App'x 785, 787 (3d Cir. 2007), an order dismissing a complaint under Rule 8 is clearly appropriate. See, e.g., Mincy v. Klem, 303 F. App'x 106 (3d Cir. 2008); Rhett v. New Jersey State Superior Court, 260 F. App'x 513 (3d Cir. 2008); Stephanatos v. Cohen. supra; Scibelli v. Lebanon County, supra; Bennett-Nelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 450 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, dismissal under Rule 8 is proper when a complaint "left the defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of action];" Binsack v. Lackawanna County Prison, 438 F. App'x 158 (3d Cir. 2011), or when the complaint is so "rambling and unclear" as to defy response. Tillio v. Spiess, No. 11-1276, 2011 WL 3346787 (Aug. 4, 2011).
Here, Walsh's pleadings fail to satisfy these basic minimal pleading standards. Indeed, these pleadings set forth no well-pleaded, or intelligible, factual narrative thread giving rise to civil liability. In a case such as this where these pleadings would leave "the defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of action]," Binsack v. Lackawanna County Prison, 438 F. App'x 158 (3d Cir. 2011), dismissal of this complaint is fully warranted here.
In addition, in this complaint the plaintiff also seeks to sue a number of private persons and organizations, alleging apparent civil rights violations. Walsh may not bring such claims against private persons as civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. It is well-established that § 1983 does not by its own force create new and independent legal rights to damages in civil rights actions. Rather, § 1983 simply serves as a vehicle for private parties to bring civil actions to vindicate violations of separate, and pre-existing, legal rights otherwise guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). Therefore, any analysis of the legal sufficiency of a cause of action under § 1983 must begin with an assessment of the validity of the underlying constitutional and statutory claims advanced by the plaintiff.
In this regard, it is also well-settled that:
Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of federally protected rights caused by persons acting under color of state law. The two essential elements of a § 1983 action are: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of a federally protected right. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981).Boykin v. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, 893 F.Supp. 409, 416 (M.D.Pa. 1995), aff'd, 91 F3d 122 (3d Cir. 1996)(emphasis added). Thus, it is essential to any civil rights claim brought under § 1983 that the plaintiff allege and prove that the defendant was acting under color of law when that defendant allegedly violated the plaintiff's rights. To the extent that this complaint seeks to hold private parties liable for alleged civil rights violations, it fails to state a valid cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since the statute typically requires a showing that the defendants are state actors. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). Therefore, this complaint fails as a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Further, to the extent that Walsh is attempting to bring some sort of state law breach of contract action it appears that all of the parties to this lawsuit reside in Northeastern Pennsylvania. It is well-settled that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a general rule, there are two primary grounds for federal district court jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit. First, "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-(1) citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This ground of federal jurisdiction is known as diversity jurisdiction. The second principal ground for invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court is known as federal question jurisdiction. Under this ground of jurisdiction, "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §1331.
Here, with respect to any common law state breach of contract claims, Walsh's complaint does not allege any "civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. §1331, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction. Instead, Walsh simply endeavors to bring a state law tort claim in federal court. However, Walsh may not assert federal jurisdiction over this state tort, since we can only exercise federal jurisdiction over such state law claims in "civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between- (1) citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)(emphasis added). In the instant case, this Court's diversity jurisdiction simply does not provide a basis for exercising jurisdiction over this particular controversy since the complaint recites that the plaintiff and the defendants are all citizens and residents of Pennsylvania. Given that the complaint reveals on its face that this lawsuit is not between citizens of different states, the plaintiff may not invoke diversity jurisdiction in this matter.
Finally, Walsh's factually unsupported demand for $50,000 in unliquidated damages is improper. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposes a duty on the Court to review pleadings and provides that the Court may upon its own initiative at any time order stricken from any pleading any immaterial matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Decisions regarding whether claims may be stricken from a complaint are properly presented to a United States Magistrate Judge for determination in the first instance. Singh v. Superintending School Committee of the City of Portland, 593 F. Supp. 1315 (D. Me. 1984). In this case, the plaintiff's claim for a specified amount of unliquidated damages, $50,000, violates Local Rule 8.1 which provides, in part, that: "The demand for judgment required in any pleading in any civil action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3) may set forth generally that the party claiming damages is entitled to monetary relief but shall not claim any specific sum where unliquidated damages are involved. The short plain statement of jurisdiction, required by Fed.R. Civ.P.8(a)(1), shall set forth any amounts needed to invoke the jurisdiction of the court but no other." Local Rule 8.1 (emphasis added). Since this prayer for relief violates Local Rule 8.1 by specifying a particular amount of unliquidated damages, it is further recommended that this specific dollar claim be stricken from the complaint.
We recognize that in civil rights cases pro se plaintiffs often should be afforded an opportunity to amend a complaint before the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, see Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007), unless it is clear that granting further leave to amend would be futile, or result in undue delay. Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). In this case, the current complaint fails to state a viable civil rights cause of action for reasons that are fundamental and cannot, in our view, be corrected through more artful pleading. Since the plaintiff cannot readily correct the deficiencies identified in the complaint, and the factual and legal grounds proffered in support of the complaint make it clear that the plaintiffs have no right to relief in federal court at this time, granting further leave to amend would be futile or result in undue delay. Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). Therefore, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.
Finally, we note that Walsh has over the past several years filed dozens of increasingly bizarre and frivolous complaints with this Court. This pattern of frivolous filings has continued unabated despite numerous admonitions from this Court. Indeed, Walsh's pattern of frivolous filings has actually accelerated in volume, venom and vehemence over time while, sadly, declining in coherence and rationality.
A partial list of these frivolous filings includes the following civil actions filed within the past year: 3:15-CV-1103,Walsh v. Walsh et al filed 06/05/15 closed 08/13/15;3:15-cv-02012-ARC Walsh v. Walsh et al filed 10/16/15 closed 11/12/15 3:15-cv-02122-RDM Walsh v. Summers et al filed 11/05/15 closed 02/11/16 3:15-cv-02313-MEM Walsh v. Corbett filed 12/02/15 closed 12/02/15 3:15-mc-00452-RDM Walsh v. Verrilli filed 10/05/15 closed 07/26/16 3:16-cv-00503-RDM Walsh v. DeNaples et al filed 03/24/16 closed 05/17/16 3:16-cv-00834-ARC Walsh v. Greater Scranton Young Mens Christian Association et al filed 05/10/16 closed 05/20/16 3:16-cv-00872-RPC Walsh v. Rite Aid et al filed 05/13/16 closed 07/20/16 3:16-cv-00950-ARC Walsh v. Munley filed 05/20/16 closed 06/21/16 3:16-cv-00998-RPC Walsh v. Bambera, et al filed 05/26/16 closed 06/17/16 3:16-cv-01234-NQA Walsh v. Conaboy et al filed 06/22/16 closed 07/12/16 3:16-cv-01429-EMK Walsh v. Conaboy et al filed 07/13/16 closed 07/25/16 3:16-cv-01430-EMK Walsh v Wilding, et al filed 07/11/16 closed 08/02/16 3:16-cv-01440-EMK Walsh v. Pascal et al filed 07/13/16 closed 07/25/16 3:16-cv-01460-EMK Walsh v. Alejandro filed 07/18/16 closed 07/27/16 3:16-cv-01462-EMK Walsh v. Stark, 3:16-cv-01112-ARC Walsh v. Cardonick et al filed 06/10/16 closed 07/08/16 3:16-cv-01223-EMK Walsh v. Deleeum filed 06/21/16 closed 07/20/16 3:16-cv-01269-NQA Walsh v. Mariani et al filed 06/23/16 closed 07/12/16 3:16-cv-01422-EMK Walsh v. Saporito et al filed 07/08/16 closed 08/09/16 3:16-cv-01445-EMK Walsh v. McKee et al filed 07/13/16 closed 07/25/16 3:16-cv-01452-EMK Walsh v. The Lynett Family filed 07/14/16 closed 07/27/16 3:16-cv-01472-EMK Walsh v. Harhut et al filed 07/19/16 closed 07/22/16 3:16-cv-01494-EMK Walsh v. Barrasse et al filed 07/20/16 closed 07/28/16 3:16-cv-01495-EMK Walsh v. American Water et al filed 07/21/16 closed 07/29/16 3:16-cv-01498-EMK Walsh v. Fuentes et al filed 07/21/16 closed 07/29/16 3:16-cv-01560-SHR Walsh v. Brazil et al filed 07/27/16 closed 08/01/16.
This Court is not powerless to address this blizzard of erratic, frivolous and vexatious filings. Quite the contrary, we have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that the courts do not become encumbered with repeated, random, meritless matters filed litigants who are unable or unwilling to comply with the requirements prescribed by the law. In such instances, provided that the litigant is given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, it is well settled that the Court possesses the inherent authority to limit a frivolous filer's opportunities to burden the legal system with meritless filings, by requiring a frivolous filer to obtain the prior approval of the Court before lodging any new complaints relating to the same subject matter of past frivolous litigation. See e.g., Chipps v. U.S.D.C. for the M.D. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989); Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987); In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1982).
In this case, the steady decline in the rationality of Walsh's filings, coupled with the dramatic increase in the volume of these filings, suggests that the Court should now provide Walsh with notice that his future filing opportunities may be limited and an opportunity to be heard on this issue.
If the district court wishes to follow this course these show cause proceedings could be referred to the undersigned for the preparation of a Report and Recommendation. See In re Allen, 248 F. App'x 874, 876 (10th Cir. 2007).
III. Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Walsh's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2.) is GRANTED but IT IS RECOMMENDED that the defendants' motion to dismiss, (Doc. 4.) be GRANTED and the complaint be dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Finally, IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a show cause order issue placing Walsh on notice that the Court is considering limiting this frivolous filer's opportunities to burden the legal system with meritless filings, by requiring Walsh to obtain the prior approval of the Court before lodging any new complaints relating to the same subject matter of past frivolous litigation, and giving Walsh an opportunity to be heard on this proposed course of action.
The plaintiff is further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
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.
Submitted this 16th day of August 2016.
S/Martin C . Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge