Johnson v. McGinley
| Decision Date | 03 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:18-CV-01714 |
| Parties | ARMONI MASUD JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SUPERINTENDENT MCGINLEY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action initiated upon the filing of the complaint by pro se Plaintiff Armoni Masud Johnson (“Johnson”) on August 29, 2018. (Doc. 1). In the amendment to his amended complaint, filed on November 15 2021, Johnson asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of legal mail and access to the courts, and conspiracy and retaliation against Defendant Lieutenant Peters (“Peters”). (Doc. 85). Before the Court are multiple motions filed by Johnson, including a “fraud claim” motion (Doc. 80), a Rule 60(b) motion, a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 91), and a motion to compel justice. (Doc. 93). For the reasons stated herein it is respectfully recommended that the motions be DENIED.
Johnson filed the original complaint in this matter on August 29, 2018, in which he named Defendants Superintendent McGinley, Deputy Luscavage, and Major Mirachi. (Doc. 1). On March 15, 2019, the Court found that the complaint and supplemental documents failed to state claims upon which relief may be granted, and Johnson was granted leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. 28; Doc. 29). On April 8, 2020, Johnson filed the amended complaint. (Doc. 32; Doc. 34). On October 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement, which the Court denied on October 23, 2020. (Doc. 43; Doc. 50). On November 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 53). Johnson filed a motion for default judgment against the Defendants on May 19, 2021, and filed a motion to strike the Defendants' brief in support of their motion to dismiss, along with several other motions. (Doc. 61; Doc. 64; Doc. 66, Doc. 69; Doc. 71; Doc. 73; Doc. 76; Doc. 77).
On June 15, 2021, the undersigned filed a report and recommendation, finding that default judgment was not appropriate and that the Defendants' motion to dismiss and brief in support were effective because the Defendants timely filed their brief in support with the Court and, even if the Defendants had failed to reply, Johnson would not be entitled to default judgment under federal law (Doc. 68, at 2); see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). On June 23, 2021, Johnson filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the recommendation, which the Court granted. (Doc. 69; Doc. 70). On July 9, 2021, Johnson filed an “omnibus motion” for extension of time and appointment of counsel in all his legal actions pending in the Middle District. (Doc. 72). On July 27, 2021, Johnson filed objections to the undersigned's recommendation. (Doc. 73).
On September 18, 2021, the Court denied Johnson's “omnibus motion, ” finding that Johnson has displayed an apparent ability to pursue his claims and file numerous documents in this and other matters. (Doc. 78). On the same day, the undersigned filed a second report and recommendation, recommending that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 79). The undersigned recommended that the Court dismiss, with prejudice, all of Johnson's claims against Defendants SCI-Coal Township and Peters, Johnson's access to courts claim, and Johnson's claim of conspiracy. (Doc. 79, at 6, 9, 12, 14). The undersigned also recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied as to Johnson's claims of retaliation against Defendants Burn, McGinley, Brokenshire, Hughes, and Adams. (Doc. 79, at 12). Lastly, the undersigned recommended that the Court grant Johnson leave to file a supplement to his amended complaint so as to clarify any adverse action by Defendant Peters in retaliation for Johnson's grievances and to re-allege his claim of conspiracy. (Doc. 79, at 14).
On October 12, 2021, Johnson filed the “fraud claim” motion and a brief in support. (Doc. 80; Doc. 81, at 1). On October 15, 2021, Johnson filed the “omnibus Rule 60(b) motion” and a brief in support. (Doc. 82; Doc. 83, at 1). On October 18, 2021, the District Court adopted the undersigned's recommendations, denying Johnson's motion for default judgment. (Doc. 61) and motion to strike Defendants' brief in support of hits motion to dismiss (Doc. 64). (Doc. 84, at 2). Additionally, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in accordance with the undersigned's recommendations. (Doc. 84, at 2). On November 15, 2021, Johnson filed the supplement to his amended complaint, asserting conspiracy and retaliation claims against Defendant Peters and requesting $100, 000 as relief for pain and suffering. (Doc. 85). On November 30, 2021, Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the supplement. (Doc. 86).
On December 30, 2021, Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment.[1] (Doc. 91; Doc. 92). On January 10, 2021, Johnson filed an “omnibus submission motion to compel justice.” (Doc. 93, at 3). Defendants have not responded to any of the pending motions. The above-mentioned motions are ripe for disposition. (Doc. 80; Doc. 81; Doc. 82; Doc. 83; Doc. 93).
Johnson asserts that “Document 78 and 79 reflects that both orders [are] from September 18, 2021, but document #79 was purposely withheld from being sent out making it hard for [Johnson] to file a timely objection to document 79, but reflects a pattern of fraud being committed by clerks office in this matter in violation of 1st, 6th and 14th amendment.” (Doc. 81, at 1-2). In addition, Johnson contends that the Court was required to rule on his objection to the undersigned's June 15, 2021, recommendations before ruling on the September 18, 2021, recommendation. (Doc. 81, at 2; Doc. 83, at 1).
Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure controls and provides that: Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). In order to satisfy Rule 9(b), plaintiffs must plead with particularity “the ‘circumstances' of the alleged fraud in order to place the defendants on notice of the precise misconduct with which they are charged, and to safeguard defendants against spurious charges of immoral and fraudulent behavior.” Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, “[p]ursuant to Rule 9(b), a plaintiff averring a claim in fraud must specify ‘the who, what, when, where, and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story.'” Advanta Corp. Sec. Litig., 180 F.3d 525, 534 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990)). “Although Rule 9(b) falls short of requiring every material detail of the fraud such as date, location, and time, plaintiffs must use ‘alternative means of injecting precision and some measure of substantiation into their allegations of fraud.'” In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props. Secs. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Nice Sys., Ltd. Secs. Litig., 135 F.Supp.2d 551, 577 (D.N.J. 2001)); Animal Sci. Prod., Inc. v. China Nat. Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 842, 878 (D.N.J. 2008).
Johnson contends that fraud is being committed upon the Court by the Clerk of Court because he did not receive the September 18, 2021, Order and recommendation until October 7, 2021, nineteen days after they were issued. (Doc. 81, at 1). Johnson avers that the Clerk of Court “purposefully withheld” the documents from being sent out, which prevented Johnson from filing a timely objection to the undersigned's recommendations. (Doc. 81, at 1). Additionally, Johnson asserts that the September 18, 2021, recommendation is a manifest error because the Court did not first rule on the June 15, 2021, recommendation. (Doc. 81, at 2; Doc. 83, at 1). For relief, Johnson requests that the Court rule on the June 15, 2021, recommendation before any further proceedings, conduct a de novo review of Johnson's “fraud claim” motion, and reject the September 18, 2021, recommendation. (Doc. 81, at 2; Doc. 83, at 1).
On October 18, 2021, the District Court adopted the June 15, 2021, and September 18, 2021, recommendations. (Doc. 84). The Court noted that after seeking two extensions of time, Johnson successfully filed objections to the undersigned's June 15, 2021, recommendation that the motion for default judgment and motion to strike be denied, but Johnson failed to file timely objections to the September 18, 2021, recommendation regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 84, at 1-2). Most importantly, the Court states “[r]egardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify - in whole or in part - the magistrate judge's finding or recommendations.” (Doc. 84, at 2) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31). Thus, after making an independent review of the record, the Court found no error in the undersigned's conclusion that Johnson's motion for default judgment should be denied and that Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 84, at 2). The Court granted Johnson leave to file a supplement to the amended complaint “only with respect to his conspiracy claim and his retaliation claim against Defendant Peters.” (Doc. 84, at 3).
Here Johnson's motions fail to fully comport with the requirements of Rule 9(b). Fairly construed, Johnson's “fraud motion” conclusively states that the Clerk of Court “purposefully withheld” sending out copies of the Order and September 18, 2021, recommendation to prevent Johnson from filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial