Korman v. Scochin

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Susan E. Schwab, United States Magistrate Judge.
• Docket Number: Civil 3:21-CV-01516
• Decision Date: 13 January 2026
• Citation: Korman v. Scochin, Civil 3:21-CV-01516 (M.D. Pa. Jan 13, 2026)
• Parties: ALLISON KORMAN, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER NICHOLAS SCOCHIN, et al., Defendants.

1

ALLISON KORMAN, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER NICHOLAS SCOCHIN, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 3:21-CV-01516

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

January 13, 2026

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Susan E. Schwab, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Introduction.

Plaintiff Allison Korman sues Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Nicholas Scochin and former Pennsylvania State Police Sergeant Brian Edward Rickard. She claims, among other things, that the defendants violated her rights by charging her with harassment for purposely taking down her mask and coughing at a Dollar General store during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and later charging her for an expired vehicle registration. Although the operative complaint-the second amended complaint-is unclear, construing that complaint liberally since Korman is proceeding pro se, we conclude that Korman brings an array of constitutional claims: a claim under the First Amendment, multiple claims under the Fourth Amendment, and multiple due process claims, both substantive and procedural, under the Fourteenth Amendment. She also brings several state-law claims.

Currently pending is the defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we will grant in part and deny in part that motion. More specifically, we will dismiss the claims against the defendants in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We will grant summary judgment to defendant Rickard as to all of Korman's federal claims based on his lack of personal involvement. As to defendant Scochin, we will grant summary judgment in his favor as to some of Korman's Fourth Amendment claims and her substantive due process claims. But we will deny defendant Scochin summary judgment as to Korman's First Amendment claim, one of her Fourth Amendment claims, and two of her procedural due process claims. We will grant both defendants summary judgment as to all of Korman's state-law claims, some based on sovereign immunity and some on the merits.

In summary, some federal claims against defendant Scochin will survive the current motion for summary judgment. But because defendant Scochin appears to have been reasonably confused about the nature of Korman's claims given her unclear second amended complaint, we will grant Scochin leave to file another motion for summary judgment as to the claims that survive the current motion.

II. Background and Procedural History.

A. Initial proceedings.

Korman, proceeding pro se, began this action by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, Pennsylvania, naming as defendants the Pennsylvania State Police Honesdale Barracks and Trooper Scochin, and broadly asserting claims of libel, slander, and civil rights violations. Doc.1-2. The defendants removed the case to this court, and then they filed a motion for a more definite statement. See docs. 1, 5. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the case was referred to the undersigned. Doc. 16.

We granted the defendants' motion for a more definite statement, and we ordered Korman to file an amended complaint. Doc. 19. Korman then filed an amended complaint. Doc. 24. She again named the Pennsylvania State Police Honesdale Barracks and Trooper Scochin as the defendants. Id. at 1. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and we granted in part and denied in part that motion. Docs. 27, 46. We also granted Korman leave to file a second amended complaint. Doc. 46.

B. The Second Amended Complaint.

On March 22, 2023, Korman filed a second amended complaint. Doc. 50.

The second amended complaint names two defendants: Trooper Scochin and former Sergeant Rickard. Id.^[1]Korman alleges that she is a single mother who has resided in Wayne County, Pennsylvania since 2008. Id. ¶ 3. She identifies defendant Scochin as a state police trooper assigned to Troop R in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, and she identifies defendant Rickard as a supervisor of the Honesdale barracks. Id. ¶¶ 4-5.

Korman's second amended complaint refers to many people she had contact with and incidents that happened since she moved to Wayne County. Id. passim. But her claims against the defendants are based primarily on two incidents-the Dollar General Incident and the Expired Registration Incident-and the events surrounding these incidents. We briefly summarize Korman's allegations regarding these incidents and the events surrounding these incidents.^[2]

1. The Dollar General Incident.

Korman's second amended complaint arises from an incident at the Dollar General in Hamlin, Pennsylvania on October 3, 2020, involving coughing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Doc. 50 ¶¶ 14-26. Both Korman and the other woman involved called the state police and gave their version of the events at issue. Id. ¶¶ 27-31. According to Korman, the other woman lied about the incident. Id. ¶ 27.

After speaking with Korman and the other woman, defendant Scochin created a “public information release report.” Id. ¶ 33. Korman attached a copy of this report to her second amended complaint. See doc. 50 at 19. In addition to containing defendant Scochin's name, listing the nature of the incident as “Harass Physical Contact,” stating the location of the incident, listing Korman as the arrestee, and listing her age, gender, general area of residence as well as such information for the “victim”-Carrie Cordell-the report contains a section titled “INCIDENT DETAILS,” which reads:

On the above date an incident occurred at the Hamlin Dollar General in Salem Township Wayne County. The defendant Allison KORMAN 38 YO/F of Lakeville PA coughed in the victim^[']s face due to the victim not having a mask on in the store. The victim related she did have a medical condition with a doctor's note, not requiring her to wear one. KORMAN cited with harassment.

Id.

On October 3, 2020, defendant Scochin also created a non-traffic citation/summons. Id. ¶ 33. That citation/summons charged Korman with harassment, and the description of the incident in the citation/summons, which Korman also attached as an exhibit to her second amended complaint, reads:

IN THAT, on or about said date, THE DEFENDANT, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, namely (Carrie CORDELL), did strike, shove, kick or otherwise subject such other person to physical contact, or did attempt or threaten to do the same, in that THE DEFENDANT did (admit to coughing on the victim during the Covid19 pandemic while in the store), in violation of Section 2709(a)(1) of the PA Crimes Code.

Doc. 50 at 20.

Characterizing the above public information release report and citation/summons as libel, Korman states that they are still available on the internet. Id. ¶ 34.

Korman alleges that defendant Scochin waited until October 5, 2020, to go to local magisterial district judge Bonnie Carney to assess the amount of the fine for the Dollar General Incident. Id. ¶ 34. According to Korman, defendant Scochin told Judge Carney that she had confessed to a crime. Id. Korman complains that defendant Scochin failed to obtain video of the incident. Id. She also believes that defendant Scochin told Judge Carney things about her history in Wayne County. Id. Defendant Scochin was able to get the amount of Korman's fine increased from what he initially told Korman the fine would be. Id. ¶ 36.

On October 6, 2020, after being informed that she was in the news again, Korman called defendant Scochin, and she left him a message asking why he lied for the newspaper and why he refused to look at the video evidence. Id. ¶ 37-38. On October 8, 2020, at 3:18 a.m., defendant Scochin called Korman's cell phone and left a 17-second message. Id. ¶ 39. He called back at 3:19 a.m., and Korman answered. Id. Korman describes that phone call as follows:

Scochin kept me on the phone for 14 minutes talking about breast cancer and how he can't make people wear a mask. He laughed at me on the phone numerous times and kept saying my first name over and over. We ended the call on a really bad note. He said that if I was unhappy with his charges that I could plead not guilty and fight them.

Id. ¶ 40.

Korman asserts that she had two court dates with defendant Scochin and the woman from the Dollar General Incident. Id. ¶ 45. During the first court date, the judge threatened Korman with a higher fine and jail time. Id. And both defendant Scochin and the woman “lied terribly in court.” Id. According to Korman, they had no witnesses, there was no evidence, and there was no probable cause. Id. After questioning defendant Scochin and the woman, Korman requested a continuance, which the court granted. Id. Korman then obtained legal counsel so that she could obtain the video evidence, and although she paid her counsel $1,500, she was not successful in obtaining that evidence. Id.

At the second court date with defendant Scochin and the woman from the Dollar General Incident, Korman's lawyer was able to prove that the woman lied about Korman spitting on her, coughing on her, trying to hit her, and starting a fight with her. Id. ¶ 46. According to Korman, her lawyer “proved everything [the woman] said was false.” Id. Korman alleges her “charge was put on probation” and “[a]fter 10 months (October to August), it would be dismissed by the Judge.” Id. She also alleges that she had to wait 10 months for the judge to dismiss the charge. Id. ¶ 48.

2. Expired Registration Incident.

Korman alleges that during her October 3, 2020 call with defendant Scochin regarding the Dollar General Incident, although he was able to see that her vehicle registration was expired defendant Scochin failed to let her know that it was expired. Id. ¶ 32. And Korman was unaware that her...