Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-cv-02112
01-05-2024
NATHAN HOYE, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY COURTS, Defendant.
Nora Barry Fischer, Senior United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Complaint, ECF No. 4, be dismissed pre-service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is also recommended that dismissal be with prejudice as amendment would be futile.
II. Report
A. Factual Allegations
The Complaint names only one defendant: “Family Courts.” The factual allegations in the Complaint are brief:
Family courts are bringing up an old fine. I wasn't aware of from an old PFA on my (illegible) and is using that to keep me from obtaining custody and legal rights for my son [name redacted] and is refusing to file my petition, and packet attached.
I respectfully request to have the Family Courts court order to not bring up an illrevelant (sic) fine that doesnt pertain to my case or (this case) and file my (paperwork petition). . . I have rights for custody and to be in my child life.Complaint (quoted verbatim). Attached to the Complaint are copies of the following documents dated 12/12/2023, which are directed to the Court of Common Pleas Allegheny County, Family Division: Petition for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Verified Financial Statement, and Complaint for Custody.
B. Standard of Review
Plaintiff, Nathan Hoye, is proceeding pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). Title 28, United States Code, section 1915(e)(2), requires the federal courts to review complaints filed by personswho are proceeding in forma pauperis and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (iii). Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires a court to determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). “ ‘At this early stage of the litigation,' ‘[the court must] accept the facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,' ‘draw[ ] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor,' and ‘ask only whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a plausible [ ] claim.' ” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As Mr. Hoye is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021).
See Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 Fed.Appx. 10, 132 (3d Cir. 2008) (non-precedential) (noting that the statute's reference to prisoners in § 1915(a)(1) “appears to be a mistake” because IFP status is “afforded to all indigent persons, not just prisoners.”); Atamian v. Burns, 236 Fed.Appx. 753, 754 (3d Cir. 2007) (non-precedential) (“the provisions of § 1915(e) apply to all in forma pauperis complaints, not simply those filed by prisoners.). Although the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not ruled on the issue in a precedential opinion, several district courts in the Third Circuit have considered the question of whether the in forma pauperis statute applies only to prisoners and have concluded that it does not. Rose v. Maggio, No. 22-0992, 2022 WL 17252088, at *1, n.1 (W.D.Pa. 2022) (Colville, J); Leatherman v. Obama, No. 12-1486, 2012 WL 5398912 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (Fisher, J.), adopting R&R, 2012 WL 5398856 (W.D. Pa. October 22, 2012); Harrison v. Shapiro, No, 97-2133, 1997 WL 197950, at * 1 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (Van Artsdalen, J.); Jones v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, No. 98-1185, 1998 WL 136511, at *1 n. 1 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (Padova, J.); McAllen v. Attic Away From Home, No. 00-941, 2000 WL 1752618, at *2 n. 7 (D. Del. 2000) (Sleet, J). Each of these courts has found the mention of the word “prisoner” to be a typographical error, and that Congress meant the statute to read “person.”
C. Analysis
Although the legal basis for Mr. Hoye's claim is not entirely clear, because he is challenging the procedures used to adjudicate his custody rights, the undersigned will analyze his claim as a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Mr. Hoye initiated this case by utilizing a court-approved complaint form entitled “Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Negligence (28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity of Citizenship). However, it is clear that no diversity exists between the parties and because Mr. Hoye is challenging the procedures used to adjudicate his custody rights the Court has interpreted his claims as brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits against a state and its agencies in federal court unless the state has consented to be sued or Congress has validly abrogated the state's immunity. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989). The Allegheny County Family Court, a division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, is an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and therefore shares in the Commonwealth's immunity. Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (state courts in Pennsylvania share in the Commonwealth's Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Green v. Domestic Rels. Section Ct. of Common Pleas Compliance Unit Montgomery Cnty., 649 Fed.Appx. 178, 180 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (“[A]ll claims against the Domestic Relations Section of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas were properly dismissed pursuant to its Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Custis v. City of Philadelphia Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 21-3573, 2021 WL 3784257, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2021) (concluding that the Domestic Unit of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas “may not be sued under § 1983” as a division of a state court). Pennsylvania has not waived immunity for civil rights claims, nor did Congress abrogate its immunity by passing § 1983. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b) (“Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to waive the immunity of the Commonwealth from suit in Federal Courts guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States). Moreover, Pennsylvania courts and their divisions are not considered “persons” subject to liability under § 1983. See Karns v. Shanahan, 879 F.3d 504, 519 (3d Cir. 2018) (noting that “ ‘[s]tates or governmental entities that are considered “arms of the State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes' are not ‘persons' under § 1983”) (quoting Will, 491 U.S. at 70)). Accordingly, there is no legal basis for Mr. Hoye's claims against the “Family Court.”
Ordinarily, a plaintiff may be granted “leave [to amend] . . . when justice so requires.” See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993). However,”[a]llowing leave to amend where ‘there is a stark absence of any suggestion by the plaintiffs that they [might] develop any new facts since the action was commenced, which would, if true, cure the defects in the pleadings . . ., would frustrate Congress's objective in enacting this statute of ‘provid[ing] a filter at the earliest stage (the pleading stage) to screen out lawsuits that have no factual basis'.” Cal. Pub. Emples'. Ret. Sys. v. Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 164 (3d Cir. 2004). It is recommended that leave to amend not be granted because any amendment would be futile. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir. 2007).
III. Conclusion
It is recommended that the instant Complaint be dismissed preservice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Amendment would be futile.
Mr. Hoye is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Mr. Hoye may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation by January 26, 2024. He is cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). See also EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).