Rodes v. Municipal Authority of Borough of Milford
| Decision Date | 13 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 17227.,17227. |
| Citation | 409 F.2d 16 |
| Parties | Alice T. RODES, Guardian ad Litem for Melania DeSzirmay, individually and as administratrix for the Estate of William Z. DeSzirmay v. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF the BOROUGH OF MILFORD. Alice T. Rodes, Guardian ad Litem, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Alice T. Rodes, pro se.
Paul A. Barrett, Nogi, O'Malley & Harris, Scranton, Pa. (Eugene Nogi, Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought by a resident of Milford Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania, against the Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, an agency established for the purpose of furnishing water to the residents of Milford Borough, for allegedly wrongfully diverting the plaintiff's water supply in such a manner as to deprive her of her civil rights in violation of section 1983 of title 42, United States Code. The district court entered an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. This is an appeal from that order.
The district court had before it a fifty-seven paragraph complaint and several amendments. The complaint, drafted without the assistance of a lawyer, contains a narrative of events which the plaintiff believes have involved violations of her civil rights. Her troubles seem to have begun with a 1955 deed, said to have been "involuntarily" given by the plaintiff and her husband to a land developer, and a related agreement upon which the developer successfully sued the present plaintiff for specific performance. Following the dismissal of a petition to vacate that judgment, the plaintiff appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Ultimately, she discontinued the appeal "on advice of attorney handling same." The complaint continues with allegations of inadequate assistance of formerly retained counsel and questionable ethics and practices of formerly retained counsel and executives of the defendant.
In 1966, the controversy came to focus on the supplying of water. The complaint alleges various unsuccessful attempts of the plaintiff to secure adequate water service. Without reciting with specificity the acts of the Authority which have worked as an infringement upon her civil rights, the plaintiff has recited a history of grievances and disputes with the Authority over billed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples Cab Co. v. Bloom
... ... , the wrongdoer, is clothed with the "badge" and authority of state law is liable in damages to a citizen who is ... Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. 1970); Rodes v. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d ... ...
-
Boddorff v. Publicker Industries, Inc.
... ... For example, in Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1976), plaintiff ... Crawford, 411 F.2d 1200 (3d Cir. 1969), Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16 (3d Cir.), cert ... ...
-
Flesch v. Eastern Pa. Psychiatric Institute
...v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275-76 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 93, 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); Rodes v. Municipal Authority of Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 861, 90 S.Ct. 133, 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 19......
-
Taylor v. Nichols
...harm in a way which will permit an informed ruling whether the wrong complained of is of federal cognizance. Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969). Mere conclusory allegations that unspecified constitutional rights have been infringed — precisely the kind of Fifth Amendm......