Goodson v. Maggi

• Decision Date: 23 June 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 08–44.
• Citation: 797 F.Supp.2d 624
• Parties: Daniel J. GOODSON, III, Plaintiff, v. Lawrence O. MAGGI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

797 F.Supp.2d 624

Daniel J. GOODSON, III, Plaintiff,

v.Lawrence O. MAGGI, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08–44.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

June 23, 2011.

Daniel J. Goodson, III, New Kensington, PA, pro se.

Friedrick C. Haines, Colorado Department of Law, Civil and Employment Litigation Section, Denver, CO, Paul R. Scholle, Office of the Attorney General, Marie Milie Jones, Jeffrey Cohen, Jonespassodelis PLLC, James R. Schadel, Weinheimer, Schadel & Haber, Edmond R. Joyal, Jr., Law Office of Joseph S. Weimer, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

GARY L. LANCASTER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff's Complaint was received by the Clerk of Courts on January 11, 2008 and was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 287) filed on June 3, 2011, recommended that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Frank C. Kocevar, Esq. (Doc. No. 255) be granted. Service was made on all counsel of record and pro se Plaintiff Daniel J. Goodson, III. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2., the parties had fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed. After review of the pleadings and the documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:

AND NOW, this 23rd day of June, 2011,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 255) filed by Defendant Frank C. Kocevar, Esq. is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 287) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated June 3, 2011, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LISA PUPO LENIHAN, United States Chief Magistrate Judge.I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 255) filed by Defendant Frank C. Kocevar, Esquire, be granted.

II. REPORTA. Relevant Facts

Plaintiff Daniel J. Goodson III (hereinafter “Father” or “Plaintiff”) is a pro se individual who has filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 on behalf of himself and his four minor children, D.G. VI, J.G., S.G. and D.G. (ECF No. 36 at Overview.) ¹ At ECF No. 242, Chief District Judge Lancaster dismissed the claims of minor Plaintiffs without prejudice, and on December 23, 2010, these minor children were terminated as parties in the above-captioned case. Therefore, Father, Daniel J. Goodson, III, is the only Plaintiff remaining.

Plaintiff asserts violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 36 at Overview.) The Amended Complaint contains a plethora of different claims regarding a variety of different situations. The majority of the claims, however, stem from custody proceedings regarding Father's children in the state courts of Pennsylvania and Colorado (hereinafter the “underlying custody matter”). Plaintiff has named 37 different defendants who are judges, courts, court employees, county commissioners and controllers, social workers employed by various county children and youth services, the mothers of Father's children, Father's former counsel, foster parents, a guardian ad litem, a state trooper, a prison official, a sheriff, and state and federal prosecutors.

In July 2004, D.G. was born as a result of a relationship between Father and Gina Savko. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 31.) In December of 2005, Father learned that D.G. was in an allegedly unsafe environment and he filed for custody of D.G. in Westmoreland County Court. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 31; see also Westmoreland County Ct. of Com. Pleas, Family Court–Custody Division, Docket No. 123 of 2006D.) He also filed a complaint with Westmoreland County Children's Bureau. (ECF No. 36 at Synopsis.) In March of 2006, Father was advised that D.G. was currently residing in Washington County, and to contact Washington County. (Letter dated 3/1/06 from Judge Driscoll's Law Clerk (copy attached to Compl.— see Doc. No. 1–3).) On July 27, 2006 and August 18, 2006, Washington County Children & Youth Services (“Washington County CYS”) filed Emergency Shelter Petitions and D.G. was ordered to be temporarily placed in foster care pending a hearing on the Petitions. (Emergency Shelter Petitions filed 7/27/06 and 8/18/06, and Judge Mascara's 8/18/06 Order, at No. 24 July 2006, Washington Co. Ct. Com. Pleas, Juvenile Ct. Div. (copies of which are attached to Compl.— see Doc. No. 1–3).) A hearing was held in Washington County Court of Common Pleas (hereinafter “Washington County Court”) on August 21, 2006 on the Emergency Petitions, after which Defendant Judge Mark Mascara entered an order directing that D.G. be placed in protective physical and legal custody of Washington County CYS.² Judge Mascara also presided over subsequent juvenile court hearings regarding the Permanency Petition of Washington County CYS to determine the dependency of D.G. from August 2006 to the filing of this federal lawsuit.

Plaintiff seeks generally declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief against all Defendants. (ECF No. 36 at Posture.) Relating to the facts and circumstances involving Defendant Frank C. Kocevar, Esquire, (“Kocevar”), who has filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff requests the following injunctive and/or declaratory relief:

(1) enjoin the state of Pennsylvania from seeking to enforce its final judgment in the interest of D.G. a minor child at JV 274–06, Washington County, PA.

(2) order that the names of the minor children be changed back to their birth names;

(3) order that D.G. be placed under the guardianship of her paternal grandparents;

(4) order that jurisdiction in all custody matters be remanded to the Westmoreland County Court and Westmoreland County CYS.

(5) order a federal investigation of all Defendants' conduct and actions in relating to the Amended Complaint.

(ECF No. 36 at Synopsis.) In addition, Plaintiff requests an order directing (1) the filing of federal criminal charges against those defendants as warranted and (2) a federal investigation of all Defendants' conduct and actions in regard to the complaint. With regard to monetary relief, Plaintiff seeks from each Defendant compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000. (ECF No. 36 at Synopsis.)

Presently before the Court is the Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed by Kocevar pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) & (6).

Liberally construing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's claims against Kocevar are found in Paragraphs 17, 29, 32, 33, 36 44, 76, 77 and 84 and aver as follows:

1) That Kocevar, along with other Defendants, has conspired to interfere with Plaintiff's civil rights under color of law and in his personal capacity. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 17.)

2) That Kocevar, along with other Defendants, has made false statements, has attempted to preclude Plaintiff from filing complaints and appeals, and forbade his testimony and his freedom of speech to the court and news media. Plaintiff further avers that Kocevar and other Defendants have made racial slurs/remarks towards Plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants, including Kocevar, have manipulated the legal system to harm Plaintiff and his family. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 29.)

3) Specifically as to Kocevar in his capacity as guardian ad litem of D.G., Plaintiff avers that he conspired with the Washington County Defendants in his “grossly negligent representation of minor D.G.,” in failing to examine records or documents, in failing to file any motions on the minor's behalf, in failing to conduct an investigation including the failure to interview witnesses, minor's parents, foster parents, or other caretakers, all which lead to D.G. being placed in a known crack house. Plaintiff further avers that Kocevar never attempted to relocate D.G. to a safer environment. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 32.)

4) Plaintiff avers that most of the actions of the Defendants occurred “during the administrative acts [and] therefore absolute immunity” does not apply. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 33.)

5) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had meetings without Plaintiffs defense counsel present where they orchestrated and coordinated their theories to prosecute Plaintiff civilly and criminally to keep minor children away from him and his family. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 36.)

6) Plaintiff further avers that defendants Kocevar, Jeffries (Father's attorney during the Washington County dependency proceedings), Judge Mascara, Savko, Kramer (attorney for Savko), and Washington County Children and Youth Services conspired with one another to make false and inflammatory statements against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that these statements were made to both racially discriminate against him and in retribution for his filing complaints against all of these defendants. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 44.)

7) Plaintiff alleges that during a September 14, 2006 conference call between himself, and defendants Judge Mascara, Jeffries, Kramer, the Wilcoxes (interim caregivers for D.G.), Savko and others, he overheard all defendants making racially disparaging remarks when they believed that the phone call had been terminated, when in fact, it had not. Plaintiff avers that these remarks continued for 3–5 minutes and only ceased when Plaintiff made it known that he could hear their remarks. At that point, the call was terminated. (ECF No. 36 at ¶¶ 76–77.)

8) Plaintiff avers that all defendants conspired with one another by off record comments, internet exchanges, and with written and telephonic communications. (ECF No....