Opinion
CIVIL NO: 3:20-CV-00051
01-14-2021
ADOLPH RICHARD OTT WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. LUZERNE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
() REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction.
The plaintiff filed a complaint requesting declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against a state court proceeding in Luzerne County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. After reviewing the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), we conclude that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus, we recommend that the Court dismiss the complaint and grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
II. Factual Background and Procedural History.
The plaintiff, Adolph Richard Ott Wright (proceeding pro se) commenced this case by filing a complaint, a notice of removal, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In his complaint, Wright names as defendants Luzerne County, "Jane M. Arci Esq.", and "Michaul [sic] A. Shocosky Court Administrator." Wright requests "a declaration that" defendants "proceed without jurisdiction and to permanently enjoin[] the defendants [from] going forward." See Doc. 1. Though Wright has provided very little information, he appears to be seeking to enjoin the proceedings at docket number 2019-13882 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Wright has provided what appears to be a judicial order from the Luzerne proceeding, but we note that the order in question is unsigned. See Doc. 1.
By a separate order, we granted Wright's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. 6. We now recommend that the Court dismiss Wright's complaint and grant Wright leave to file an amended complaint.
III. Discussion.
A. The Complaint.
1. Pleading Standards.
We review the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In determining whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted under this section, we apply the standards used under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), which provides for dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In this context, "[w]e must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construe the complaint in the light favorable to the plaintiff, and ultimately determine whether plaintiff may be entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the complaint." Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2010). In making that determination, we "consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the [plaintiff's] claims are based upon these documents." Id. at 230.
"A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)." I.H. ex rel. D.S. v. Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist., 842 F. Supp. 2d 762, 769-70 (M.D. Pa. 2012). "Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The statement required by Rule 8(a)(2) must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and of the grounds upon which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but more is required than labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009). "A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts." Id.
In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, and the court must draw all reasonable inferences from the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). But 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). A court also need not "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).
Following Twombly and Iqbal, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, it must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. 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 plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Second, the court should identify allegations that, "because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." 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."Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (footnote and citations omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679).
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed and "'however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Nevertheless, "pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013). Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a pro se complaint must recite factual allegations that 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.
2. Because the complaint is so factually sparse, it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Wright requests that we enjoin a state court proceeding, but Wright provides next to no factual support for his request. Wright alleges almost no facts in his complaint. His only allegations are a few documents: the above-referenced judicial order as well as other ministerial filings from the state court docket. See Doc. 1. Though Wright is a pro se plaintiff, Wright has not "allege[d] sufficient facts in [his] complaint to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013). "[A] pro se complaint must recite factual allegations that are sufficient to raise the Plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation." Schwager v. Jonathan T./Jonathan G., No. 1:18-CV-1101, 2018 WL 5624301, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Schwager v. Jonathan T., No. 1:18-CV-1101, 2018 WL 5617869 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2018). Wright has not done so. Accordingly, Wright's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Before dismissing a complaint under a screening provision, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). Here, in light of the liberal-amendment standard, we recommend that the court grant Wright an opportunity to correct the deficiencies noted above.
IV. Recommendations.
Based on the foregoing, we recommend that Wright's complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We further recommend that Wright be given leave to file an amended complaint.
Any amended complaint must be titled as an amended complaint and must contain the docket number of this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Wright "is advised that any amended complaint must be complete in all respects." Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992). "It must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed." Id. "Also in general, an amended pleading—like [any] amended complaint here—supersedes the earlier pleading and renders the original pleading a nullity." Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 220 (3d Cir. 2017). In other words, if an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint will have no role in the future litigation of this case. Any amended complaint must also comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the requirements that the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction," "a short and plain statement of the claim," and "a demand for the relief sought." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Further, "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). "A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). And to the extent it would promote clarity to do so, "each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count." Id. Any amended complaint must also comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.
The Parties are 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 14th day of January, 2021.
S/Susan E . Schwab
Susan E. Schwab
United States Magistrate Judge