Winkler v. Pringle, Civ. A. No. 62-808.

• Citation: 214 F. Supp. 125
• Decision Date: 10 January 1963
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 62-808.
• Parties: Edmund WINKLER, Plaintiff, v. Samuel W. PRINGLE and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

214 F. Supp. 125

Edmund WINKLER, Plaintiff, v. Samuel W. PRINGLE and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 62-808.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

January 10, 1963.

Edmund Winkler, pro se.

Bruce R. Martin, Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

ROSENBERG, District Judge.

The plaintiff here was an unsuccessful plaintiff in a negligence action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at No. 1227 January, 1958, where he was represented by his own counsel. Thereafter at No. 2180 April 1962, the plaintiff in propria personam filed a complaint in the same court by which he charged defendant's counsel, in the prior case, with making defamatory remarks, by which he was damaged. The defendant filed preliminary objections to this latter complaint in the nature of a demurrer. The preliminary objections were sustained by a court en banc, on the well reasoned opinion of Judge Aldisert. Edmund Winkler v. Samuel W. Pringle and The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 110 P.L.J. 323 (1962). On September 4, 1962, plaintiff again in propria personam filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from the dismissal of this complaint in the Court of Common Pleas. As of this date that appeal is still pending.

The plaintiff's action here against the defendants is for the violation of his civil rights.¹ Defendants' motion for dismissal is based upon the reason that plaintiff's complaint does not set out a cause of action. The Court agrees with the defendant. In fact, it is obvious that under no circumstances can the plaintiff prevail upon the facts averred and as they appear of record. Since the plaintiff has incorporated in his complaint the proceedings had in the Common Pleas Court, they are here considered factually.

Plaintiff attempts to meet jurisdictional requirements as to diversity of citizenship by invoking the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 et seq. Judge Maris of the Third Circuit Court discusses this question in Williams v. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 200 F.2d 302 at page 307 (3rd Cir.) (1952):

"It has long been settled that the Fourteenth Amendment is directed only to state action and that the invasion by individuals of the rights of other individuals is not within its purview. It necessarily follows that the jurisdiction conferred upon the federal district courts by Section 1343 is similarly limited and that redress for the invasion by an individual of the civil rights of another must be sought in the state courts, unless, of course, diversity of citizenship is present."

Plaintiff does not argue or contend that any of the named parties in the above suit...