Goodwin v. Moyer, 3:CV-05-781.

Citation549 F.Supp.2d 621
Decision Date29 March 2006
Docket NumberNo. 3:CV-05-781.,3:CV-05-781.
PartiesPerle C. GOODWIN, Plaintiff v. Steven MOYER, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania

Peter G. Loftus, Loftus Law Firm, P.C., Waverly, PA, for Plaintiff.

Robin B. Snyder, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Scranton, PA, Eugene C. Kelley, Timothy P. Polishan, Hoegen, Hoegen & Kelley, LLP, Wilkes-Barre, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN E. JONES III, United States Magistrate Judge.

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff Perle C. Goodwin ("Plaintiff or "Goodwin") commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 18, 2005, by filing a complaint against Defendants Steven Moyer, superintendent of the Tunkhannock Area School District ("School District"), Karen Delancey, director of transportation of the School District, Tunkhannock Area Board of Directors ("Board of Directors"), and Husband, the owner and operator of Forward Transportation/Husband's Trucking (collectively "Defendants"). (Rec.Doc. 1).

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion for preliminary review. On March 2, 2006, the Magistrate Judge prepared a report wherein he recommended that: Defendant Husband's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 26) be granted with respect to count one, Plaintiffs counts two through six be dismissed against Defendant Husband for lack of jurisdiction; Defendants Moyer's, Delancey's, and Board of Directors' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 9) be granted with respect to Plaintiffs substantive due process and invasion of privacy claims in count one; Defendants Moyer's, Delancey's, and Board of Directors' Motion to Dismiss be denied regarding Plaintiffs procedural due process claim in count one; and their Motion be granted with respect to Plaintiffs counts two through six.

On March 20, 2006, Defendants Moyer, Delancey, and Board of Directors filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and on March 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the report. The resolution of such objections will form the basis of this narrative.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On April 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleges that Defendants, in their individual and official capacities, separately and in concert invaded his privacy in violation of the Fourth Amendment and deprived him of substantive and procedural due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with a contractual relationship, wrongful discharge, and invasion of privacy in violation of Pennsylvania law. On May 16, 2005, Plaintiff amended his complaint against all Defendants, which reiterates the claims, legal arguments, and seeks the same relief as the original complaint, but makes three factual changes. (See Rec. Docs. 1, 7).

Defendants Moyer, Delancey, and Board of Directors filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint on June 20, 2005, which has been fully briefed. As Defendant Husband, acting pro se, failed to respond to the complaint, the Court entered default against him on October 7, 2005; however, on November 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge set aside the entry of default. (Rec.Docs, 20, 25). Defendant Husband subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint on November 18, 2005, which has been briefed by the parties. The Motions are therefore ripe for disposition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable in their individual and official capacities for violating his civil rights under the United States Constitution and Pennsylvania law because they invaded his privacy by installing a video camera on Plaintiffs school bus and deprived him of substantive and procedural due process of law by circumscribing and then terminating his employment as a bus driver without a hearing. As the Magistrate Judge accurately submits, Plaintiffs theory of liability is premised upon the following facts he submits, which the Court must accept as true at this juncture, for the purpose of considering Motions to Dismiss.

Plaintiff was employed as a school bus driver by Defendant Husband's company, Forward Transportation/Husband's Trucking, which contracted with the School District to provide school bus service. Plaintiffs school bus was equipped with a video camera, which Defendants allegedly installed "individually, jointly and severally" and "with the knowledge, concurrence and approval of the individual defendants." (Rec.Doc. 7). On June 6, 2003, Plaintiff drove bus number 20 and Defendant Husband was on the bus to show Plaintiff the route because he had not previously driven that route. After delivering the children on that date, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Delancey informing him that "he had let a little girl walk from the mini-mart on Route 292 to her home in a trailer park." Id. Defendants Moyer and Delancey met with Plaintiff concerning the incident. Defendant Delancey sent Plaintiff a letter informing him that he was authorized only to drive bus number 48 and "the late run two times a week." On June 10, 2003, Defendant Delancey sent Plaintiff a letter informing him that, after discussing the issue with Defendant Moyer, he was not approved to be a full-time driver for the 2003-2004 school year. In addition, if Plaintiff were ever to be used as a substitute bus driver, the School District administration would first have to approve the use.

On or about November 3, 2004, Plaintiff requested a hearing concerning his employment before the Board of Directors; however, he received no response. Plaintiff contends that the School Code mandates a hearing before a bus driver can be dismissed or terminated. This refers to the Public School Code, 24 P.S, § 5-514, which provides the following:

The board of school directors in any school district ... shall after due notice, giving the reasons therefor, and after hearing if demanded, have the right at any time to remove any of its officers, employees, or appointees for incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or other improper conduct.

Plaintiff contends that he was an appointee of the School District and accordingly entitled to due process under the Public School Code.

Plaintiffs amended complaint consists of six counts against Defendants: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with a contractual relationship, wrongful discharge, and invasion of privacy. On each count, Plaintiff seeks relief against Defendants "individually, jointly and severally" in the form of compensatory and punitive damages in excess of eighty thousand dollars.

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept the veracity of a plaintiffs allegations. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir.1990). In Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir.1996), our Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained that when considering a motion to dismiss based upon a failure to state a claim argument, a court should "not inquire whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims." Additionally, "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310, 313 (3d Cir.1986).

When objections are filed to a report of a magistrate judge, we make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge to which there are objections. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. Furthermore, district judges have wide discretion as to how they treat recommendations of a magistrate judge. See id. Indeed, in providing for a de novo review determination rather than a de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See id.; see also Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir.1984).

DISCUSSION:

As the Magistrate Judge submitted, in order for a plaintiff to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must establish two elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir.1993) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 534, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)). Additionally, liability under § 1983 is personal in nature and can only follow personal involvement in the alleged wrongful conduct shown through specific allegations of personal direction or actual knowledge and acquiescence. Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3d Cir.1997) (citing Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir,1988)).

We initially note that Plaintiff does not appear to object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant Husband is a private party who did not act under color of law pursuant to § 1983. Regardless, we agree with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bell v. Lackawanna Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 31 Agosto 2012
  • State v. Duchow
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 2008
    ... ...         ¶ 27 School bus drivers endure a similarly diminished expectation of privacy inside the school buses they operate. Goodwin v. Moyer, 549 F.Supp.2d 621, No. 3:CV-05-781, 2006 WL 839342 (M.D.Pa.2006). 21 In Goodwin, a school bus driver sued various school district ... ...
  • Donovan v. Pittston Area Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 17 Junio 2015
  • Chinniah v. E. Pennsboro Twp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 8 Enero 2021
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT