Dougherty v. Snyder, CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-1071

• Decision Date: 16 May 2011
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-1071
• Parties: KEITH DOUGHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs v. JONATHAN SNYDER, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

KEITH DOUGHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs v. JONATHAN SNYDER, et al., Defendants

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-1071

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date: May 16, 2011

MEMORANDUM

I. Introduction

This civil-rights action was initiated by the pro se plaintiff, Keith Dougherty. It arises from the issuance of a building permit for improvements to be made to a residence located in North Hopewell Township, with the anticipation of selling the house at a profit. The improvements were begun but never completed. Plaintiff Dougherty traced the situation to the actions of the Township and its agents as Plaintiff invoked rights under the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act ("PCCA"), 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7210.101-7210.1103 (West 2003), in an attempt to get construction of the improvements back on track. He also complained about rulings made by the state courts in actions he filed, in part, to remedy the alleged violations of the PCCA on the part of the Township and its agents. Federal constitutional claims were made for violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, equal protection, and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The complaint also mentioned the Pennsylvania Constitution and Pennsylvania common law.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss. On January 25, 2011, we granted those motions but allowed plaintiff Dougherty leave to amend. Dougherty v.Snyder, 2011 WL 292236 (M.D. Pa.). On February 15, 2011, Dougherty filed an amended complaint (doc. 124), with additional plaintiffs and defendants. We are considering the defendants' motions to dismiss that pleading.

On the amended complaint, the plaintiffs, all proceeding pro se, are: Keith Dougherty ("Dougherty"), the sole member of Docson Consulting LLC, the limited liability company that had contracted to make the improvements to the property¹; Keith Dougherty Insurance and Consulting, a sole proprietorship operated by Dougherty; Jean L. Brady, one of the owners of the property; and Kenneth Brady, formerly married to Melanie Brady, the other owner of the property.² The defendants are: North Hopewell Township; Dustin Grove, William Tollinger, and Robert Barclay, the members of the Township Board of Supervisors; Kerrie Ebaugh, the Township Secretary/Treasurer; Jonathan Snyder, the Township's Building Construction Officer at the relevant time; Stephen Linebaugh, Judge of the York County Court of Common Pleas; Pamela Lee, the court's Prothonotary; J. Robert Chuk, District Court Administrator for the court; John Doe members of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, "as authors of per curiam opinions 553 CD 2007, 317 MD 2008, ³ 1450 CD 2008, 629 CD 2009, and 1200 CD 2009"; Ron Englar, the U.C.C.⁴ Field OperationsManager for the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry; Melanie Brady; Darrell VanOrmer, Melanie Brady's lawyer in her state-court action against Jean Brady to partition the property; and "unnamed insurance carriers" for the Township. The individual defendants working for the state or the Township have been sued in their individual and official capacities.

We are considering the following motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6): (1) Pamela Lee's motion (doc. 125); (2) the motion of North Hopewell Township, its supervisors and its Secretary/Treasurer (doc. 132); (3) the motion of Darrell VanOrmer (doc. 133); (4) the motion of Melanie Brady (doc. 134); (5) the motion of Judge Linebaugh, Chuk, and the John Doe commonwealth court judges (doc. 136); and (6) the motion of Jonathan Snyder.

II. Standard of Review

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." On a motion to dismiss, "[w]e 'accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.'" Byers v. Intuit, Inc., 600 F.3d 286, 291 (3d Cir. 2010)(quoted case omitted).

A complaint has to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d. 929 (2007). Detailed factual allegations are not required, id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964, but the "'plausibility standard'... asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _ U.S. _, _, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965)). "[M]ore than labels and conclusions" are necessary. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65. "[Allegations that are merely consistent with liability are insufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face..." Laffey v. Plousis, 364 F. App'x 791, 794 (3d Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949)(internal quotation marks omitted).⁵

Additionally, when a plaintiff, as here, alleges a conspiracy, he "must assert facts from which a conspiratorial agreement can be inferred." Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 178 (3d Cir. 2010). "[C]onclusory allegations that there was 'a corrupt conspiracy, ' 'an agreement, ' or 'an understanding in place'" are not sufficient. Id. The winning party in a lawsuit does not automatically become a co-conspirator with the judge simply because he won. Id.

The court is not limited to evaluating the complaint alone; it can also consider documents attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and indisputably authentic documents. Delaware Nation v. Pennsylvania, 446 F.3d 410, 413 n.2 (3d Cir. 2006). This includes court filings. See Churchill v. Star Enterprises, 183 F.3d 184, 190 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999)(citing Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). See also Parks v. Twp. of Portage, 385 F. App'x 118, 120 (3d Cir. 2010)(per curiam) (nonprecedential)(on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the court would take judicial notice of publicly available state-court opinions). When the allegations of the complaint differ from the documents attached to the complaint, the documents control, and the allegations of the complaint need not be accepted. ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 n.8 (3d Cir. 1994); Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 618, 624 (D.N.J. 2010).

Finally, while "pro se complaints are 'liberally construed' and 'held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, '" Jackson v. Div. of Developmental Disabilities, 394 F. App'x 950, 951 n.3 (3d Cir. 2010)(per curiam) (nonprecedential)(quoted case omitted), a pro se complaint must still "contain allegations permitting 'the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Id. (quoted case omitted).

With these principles in mind, we provide the background to this case, as Plaintiff alleges it.

III. Background

The amended complaint alleges as follows. Melanie Brady and Jean L. Brady were the deed holders on the property, (doc. 124, Am. Compl. ^ 88), although Kenneth Brady and Melanie Brady, who were husband and wife, had lived there during their marriage. (Id. ¶ 87).

On July 28, 2006, Melanie and Kenneth Brady executed a "Divorce/Separation Agreement." (Id. ¶ 199; Am. Compl., Ex. B). The agreement contemplated that within a short time either a sale of the marital home would occur or that it would be improved and then sold.⁶ The parties to the agreement "were strictly prohibited from interfering with 3rd party arrangements in any way." (Am. Compl.204).⁷ Melanie Brady was paid $2,500 at the time of the agreement, leaving her with "no further claim against the real estate." (Id. ¶ 208).

Dougherty, Keith Dougherty Insurance and Consulting, and Docson Consulting "contracted with" Jean L. Brady "whereby Keith Dougherty purchaser with POA fbo Jean Brady [as to management and sale of her interest in the real estate in question] and exclusive rights with regard to design and or implementation of improvements and sale of project. [Such disclosure and design is made Part of EXHIBIT 1 "The Sales Agreement" with expressed intent to defer taxation for nonresident owners]. And incorporated by reference for the purpose of tax Deferral of Docson Consulting LLC EXHIBIT A. With further detail as to intendment of sale to Keith Dougherty outlined in the Disclosure document EXHIBIT C." (Id. ¶ 31).⁸Proceeds from the sale of the house were to be used for the construction of a "Cluck U" chicken franchise, (id. ¶202), which had a deadline of April 30, 2008. (Id. ¶ 203).

On August 17, 2006, Kenneth Brady applied for the building permit. (Id. U 33). On October 4, 2006, the permit was issued. (Id. ¶ 35). Docson Consulting made payment of $1,131.50 for the fees, (id.), and then an additional fee of $438.90, allegedly illegally imposed when Snyder "unlawfully add[ed] additional inspections" after he found out there was an "additional payor." (Id. ¶ 36). Plaintiffs allege that the permit "is valuable personal property owned by Docson Consulting LLC." (Id. ¶ 38).⁹

About May 2007, Snyder had his son inform Kenneth Brady of a stop work order "based on a suspicion and without inspection." (Id. ¶ 43). Plaintiff Dougherty sought clarification and Snyder told him he had "forg[otten]" that the permit involved a second-story addition of three bedrooms and a bath. (Id. ¶ 44). This addition would "chang[e] the load bearing walls from East and West to North and South." (Id.).

At some point, work resumed after Snyder had familiarized himself with the "engineered lumber" being used. In late May 2007, Snyder required three changes: (1) "bolt the first floor addition to the new garage with ½ carriage bolts"; (2) "replace the second story bedroom windows to meet the newer egress requirements"; and (3) "cut footings into the basement floor 3'X 3' 12" thick using ½ rebar." (Id. ¶¶5861).

On June 15, 2007, Plaintiff...