Martinez v. City of Reading Prop. Maint. Div.

• Decision Date: 29 September 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1290
• Parties: GILBERT M. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF READING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE DIVISION, READING AREA WATER AUTHORITY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

GILBERT M. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF READING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE DIVISION,READING AREA WATER AUTHORITY, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1290

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 29, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Smith, J.

The pro se plaintiff brought this action due to the allegedly unlawful actions by the defendants, a city's property maintenance division and a municipal water authority, in regard to, inter alia (1) the water authority's continued acts of terminating municipal water services for his home and charging him fees for a compromised water meter and turning off and on the water, and (2) the property maintenance division condemning his property for not having running water and then issuing non-traffic citations calling for fines because of the lack of running water. Based on these purportedly wrongful acts, the plaintiff expressly asserts federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and state law claims for violations of various provisions of the Pennsylvania Utilities Code. The plaintiff also generally asserts that the defendants conspired among themselves and with a variety of other entities and individuals, including the FBI, to violate his constitutional rights in retaliation for a civil action he brought in the Eastern District of New York. Both of the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant the motions.

I. ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 18, 2016, the pro se plaintiff, Gilbert M. Martinez ("Martinez"), filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a proposed complaint. Doc. No. 1. In the proposed complaint, Martinez named as defendants the Honorable Madelyn J. Fudeman (in her individual and official capacities), the City of Reading Property Management Division ("PMD"), and the Reading Area Water Authority ("RAWA"). He asserts that

[t]his is a civil action seeking injunction [sic] relief, monetary relief, including past and ongoing economic loss, compensatory and punitive damages, disbursements, costs and fees for violations of rights, brought pursuant to [T]itle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)[,] 42 USC 2000e[,] 42 USC 1981, 1983, 18 USC 241, 242[,] First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eight[h,] and Fourteenth [A]mendments.

. . .

This court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 53 Pa[.]C.S.A. § 5607 Municipal Authorities Act, 53 P.S. § 3102 Water Service Act, 73 P.S. § 201 Unfair Trade Act, and the Supremacy Clause Article VI Section II of the United States Constitution because the defendants are persons acting under color of law within the meaning of 1983.

Complaint at 1 (alterations to original).

Martinez alleges that in October 2013, he contacted RAWA after noticing an increase in his water bill. Id. at ¶ 3. Although RAWA offered to change Martinez's meter for him, he rejected the request. Id. RAWA then, through threats and intimidation, insisted that Martinez provide it with access to change the meter. Id.

On October 8, 2013, RAWA gave Martinez notice that it would terminate his water service in five days because of his non-compliance. Id. at ¶ 4. It appears that RAWA turned off Martinez's water service and then charged him $112 for the turn-off.¹ Id. at ¶ 5. RAWA thendoubled this fee after falsely alleging that it found Martinez's water running three days later. Id. at ¶ 5.

RAWA sent the PMD to Martinez's home and, apparently, the PMD condemned the home and ordered him to vacate the premises.² Id. at ¶ 6. The PMD then summoned Martinez to court to "further attempt to unlawfully take plaintiff [sic] for fines nearing six hundred dollars for having no running water on two separate occasions." Id.

RAWA continued to harass Martinez for turn-off fees, and in March 2014, it increased the turn-off fees to $345. Id. at ¶ 7. It also sent a ten-day turn-off notice to Martinez. Id. Despite receiving $268 from Martinez to avoid another cessation of his water services, RAWA terminated his water services on March 28, 2014, and Martinez did not have running water at his property for approximately eight months thereafter. Id. at ¶ 8. Although Martinez did not have running water in his home during this period, RAWA continued to charge him for water consumption and a monthly service fee of $45. Id.

Apparently, at some point RAWA replaced the water meter in Martinez's home, but it "refused to calibrate the meter upon [his] request to cover-up all overpaid water consumption charges." Id. at ¶ 9 (alteration to original). An attorney for RAWA then "trumped up bogus charges nearing 1,300 dollars." Id. In addition, "[t]he City of Reading then fraudulently placed [a] lien on plaintiffs [sic] home for trash collection charges that were paid to them." Id. (alteration to original).

At this point, Martinez alleges that Judge Fudeman became involved in a conspiracy with RAWA and PMD to violate his rights. Id. at ¶ 10. In particular, Judge Fudeman required him to pay "an excessive collateral" of $500 to restore his water despite knowing of his lack of financialmeans. Id. Also, in April 2014, Judge Fudeman, "to increase the cost of litigation with intent to cover-up defendants['] fraudulent acts, entered an order forcing plaintiff to arbitrate." Id. at ¶ 11 (alteration to original). Judge Fudeman did this to "deprive [him] of a public trial violating the Federal Arbitration Act." Id. at ¶ 12 (alteration to original).

The arbitration was later canceled to allegedly prevent Martinez from "follow[ing] through with an appeal." Id. at ¶ 13 (alteration to original). Martinez then attempted to get a scheduling order, but Judge Fudeman "in a malicious cover-up ordered arbitration." Id. Judge Fudeman ordered the arbitration to "delay and prolong[] the case from reaching the merits." Id. at ¶ 14 (alteration to original).

On or around January 2016, Martinez became aware that Met-Ed, an entity that he previously sued, had been overcharging him for rates of consumption and underpaying "PCAP rates as contracted by the Public Utility Commission." Id. at ¶ 15. After Martinez filed an informal complaint with Met-Ed, the defendants again began to harass him "through unlawful turn-offs, thus demanding access to [his] home to change their meter that was not in need to be changed[.]" Id. at ¶ 16 (alteration to original). RAWA also again terminated his water service and charged him for the turn-off. Id.

Martinez filed an informal complaint on March 4, 2016, and the defendant, "without resolving the complaint[,] terminated water services violating unauthorized termination for Public Utilities and Winter Termination Procedures."³ Id. at ¶ 17 (alteration to original). Martinez then filed an order to show cause to stop the proposed termination of water services, but the court refused to sign the order and, as such, deprived him of a hearing. Id. at ¶ 18.

Martinez appeared before Judge Fudeman on an emergency motion (that he apparently filed) on March 12, 2016. Id. at ¶ 19. Martinez claims that Judge Fudeman deprived him of an evidentiary hearing and "therefore authorized and consented to defendant terminating water services." Id. Judge Fudeman "also attempted to force [him] into a[n] agreement with defendant under duress, [and] stated 'If I grant you a hearing it wouldn't be heard forweeks [sic] which would leave you without water until then.'" Id. (alterations to original).

Martinez "was forced to file" a second emergency motion and there was a hearing on March 15, 2016. Id. at ¶ 20. During this hearing Judge Fudeman allegedly "by and through coercion" precluded Martinez's attempt to introduce audio recordings as evidence "and threatened and intimated [him] with an indictment for unlawful wiretaps." Id. (alteration to original). Martinez believed that the audio tapes "were legally obtained in full accordance with the law." Id. During the hearing, Judge Fudeman also deprived him of his right to cross-examine the defendants' witnesses after their attorney introduced a "fraudulent document as evidence." Id. at ¶ 21. Judge Fudeman then abruptly terminated the hearing, resulting in Martinez remaining without water. Id.

On March 16, 2016, the PMD placed a sticker on the door of Martinez's home. Id. at ¶ 22. The sticker informed Martinez that he had to vacate the premises for the unlawful turn-offs. Id. Martinez claims that this happened on "multiple occasions." Id.

Based on the aforementioned allegations, Martinez seemingly asserts three general causes of action. The first count of the complaint contains a purported cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.⁴ Id. at 6. Martinez appears to also contend thatthe defendants conspired to violate his aforementioned constitutional rights. Id. He further alleges that (1) the defendants "retaliate[d] against him for exercising his Freedom of speech right and right to Federal Suit[,]" (2) denied him due process of law, and (3) discriminated against him because of his "race and class in society." Id. (alterations to original). He claims that due to the defendants' acts he "suffered and continues to suffer fear, anxiety, physical injury, mental anguish, emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, loss of his usefulness to the public and loss of the enjoyment of life." Id. at 7. He asserts that he "is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as well as punitive damages and . . . is entitled to [damages] in excess of [$5,000,000]." Id. (alterations to original).

Count II of the complaint appears to assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Id. Martinez once again claims that the defendants discriminated against him "based in whole or in part [on] his race and class in society." Id. Thus, he asserts that they denied him his full and equal rights of the law that are given to white citizens....