Ally v. Myers

• Decision Date: 27 June 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-00725
• Parties: JONATHAN ALLY, Plaintiff, v. KAREN FELICA DUTEAVICH MYERS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

JONATHAN ALLY, Plaintiff,
v.
KAREN FELICA DUTEAVICH MYERS, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-00725

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 27, 2019

(JONES, J.)
(MEHALCHICK, M.J.)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a pro se civil rights action, initiated upon the filing of the original complaint in this matter by Plaintiff Jonathan Ally ("Ally" or "Plaintiff") on April 3, 2018. (Doc. 1). In his complaint, Ally asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the Ku Klux Klan Act, against the following defendants: Detective Mary Hottenstein ("Detective Hottenstein"); Judge Kathryn Silcox and Judge Beckley ("Judicial Defendants"); Shane Kope ("Kope"); Linda Hollinger ("Attorney Hollinger"); and Karen Myers and Alden Myers, mother and son. Now pending before the Court are five motions to dismiss Ally's complaint, filed by the Judicial Defendants (Doc. 19), Attorney Hollinger (Doc. 24), Alden Myers (Doc. 33), Karen Myers (Doc. 35), and Detective Hottenstein (Doc. 38). For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that each of these motions be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ally alleges that he scheduled an interview with Detective Hottenstein to report many rapes, his purchase through sex trafficking, and the murder of his cousin. (Doc. 1, at ¶ 3). Ally further claims that certain false statements were made by an unspecified individual, which resulted in his arrest for twelve counts of harassment. (Doc. 1, at ¶ 3). Ally alleges that he was

Page 2

placed on excessive bail of $10,000 and his Fourth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Ally also states that he was deprived of equal protection of the law, because he was not allowed to file charges against a white female, but she was allowed to file charges against him "in retaliation." (Doc. 1, at ¶ 3).

Ally brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the Ku Klux Klan Act.¹ (Doc. 1, at ¶ 3). Ally seeks dismissal of the twelve charges of harassment pending against him in state court, citing violations of his rights under the Fourth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution. (Doc. 1, at ¶¶ 3-4).² Ally challenges the validity of his arrest. (Doc. 1, at ¶¶ 3). He also requests the "Judges, detectives, [and] Karen Myers to be charged with rape, murder, [and] sex trafficking" and "[t]he detective, Mary Hottenstein to be charged with obstruction of justice, collusion." (Doc. 1, at ¶ 4). Additionally, Ally "would like to sue Karen Myers for [$] 3 million" for purchasing, raping, and harassing him. (Doc. 1, at ¶ 4).

Page 3

On February 8, 2019, the Judicial Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support. (Doc. 19); (Doc. 20). On February 14, 2019, Attorney Hollinger filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support. (Doc. 24); (Doc. 25). On March 15, 2019, Alden Myers and Karen Myers filed motions to dismiss and briefs in support (Doc. 33); (Doc. 34); (Doc. 35); (Doc. 36). On March 27, 2019, Ally filed one brief in opposition to these four motions to dismiss.³ (Doc. 37). On April 1, 2019, Detective Hottenstein filed a motion to dismiss and brief in support. (Doc. 38); (Doc. 39). To date, Ally has not submitted a brief in opposition to Detective Hottenstein's motion to dismiss.⁴

These motions to dismiss are ripe for disposition.

Page 4

II. DISCUSSION

A. LEGAL STANDARDS

The various defendants move to dismiss Ally's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

1. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

"Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), a court must grant a motion to dismiss if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a claim." In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012). "When a motion under Rule 12 is based on more than one ground, the court should consider the 12(b)(1) challenge first because if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all other defenses and objections become moot." In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 837 F.Supp. 104, 105 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff'd 39 F.3d 61 (3d Cir.1994).

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). "They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (internal citations omitted). Federal courts may hear cases "in which a well-plead complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 28 (1983). Legal insufficiency of a claim generally does not eliminate a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware Cnty, Pa., 983 F.2d 1277, 1280 (3d Cir. 1993) (collecting cases).

Courts considering a jurisdiction-based dismissal have two standards in evaluating whether jurisdiction is proper, with the applicable standard determined by the nature of the

Page 5

challenge to jurisdiction itself. See Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 2006) (in reviewing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), this Court must distinguish between facial attacks and factual attacks to subject matter jurisdiction). "[J]urisdictional challenges take two forms: (1) parties may make a 'factual' attack, arguing that one or more of the pleading's factual allegations are untrue, removing the action from the court's jurisdiction; or (2) they may assert a 'facial' challenge, which assumes the veracity of the complaint's allegation but nonetheless argues that a claim is not within the court's jurisdiction." Corman v. Torres, 287 F. Supp. 3d 558, 566 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (citing Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F. 3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015)). If reviewing a factual attack, a court may consider evidence outside the pleadings. If a facial attack, a court "considers the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Gorton v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 303 F. Supp. 3d 278, 289 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (citing Gould Electronics, Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000)).

2. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

A complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8 also requires a "showing that 'the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. If a complaint fails to comply with the threshold pleading requirements of Rule

Page 6

8, a defendant may move for its dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Sally-Harriet v. Northern Children Svcs. No.CV 17-4695, 2019 WL 1384275, at *3 (E.D. Pa. March 26, 2019) ("[a] motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)").

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), continuing with our opinion in Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)] and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff 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 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 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) (internal citations omitted). Additionally, a court need not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged. Assoc'd. Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

Page 7

Further, a plaintiff 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 action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Accordingly, when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a trial court must assess whether a complaint states facts upon which relief can be granted, and should "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In addition to the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, the Court may also consider ...