ROYER v. PENNSYLVANIA, No. 2:2011cv00318 - Document 13 (W.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 7/15/11. (map)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ROYER v. PENNSYLVANIA Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHIL ROYER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-0318 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM July Gary L. Lancaster, Chief Judge. This is an action in civil rights. l ), 2011 plaintiff, Phil Royer, proceeding pro se, asserts what we construe to be a claim pursuant to section ("section 1983"), 1983 of 42 U.S.C. § the 1983. Civil Rights In short, Act of 1871 Royer contends that pennsylvania law violates his Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by making him ineligible to possess a firearm under federal law. Royer seeks damages sufficient to compensate him "for the permanent loss of [his] gun rights." Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Royer's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment complaint a fails to granted [doc. no. 7]. state claim upon and that which relief Royer's can be For the reasons that follow, we grant the motion. Dockets.Justia.com I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 23, Pennsylvania's Uniform without a license, law, because while 2008, Firearms 18 Pa.C. S. Royer corruni tting did this not degree. Compare Pennsylvania, up to (5) his years offense exceeding one year, under law, federal Royer , corruni t his crime was to the Although that Royer became U.S.C. has 18 punishable the United by Pa.C.S. this fee Ninth for and a is his a In Royer's firearms Tenth Article Thus, rights Constitution by enforcing his (~ a federal prohibits him from possessing a gun, that sanction for 21 law Second Article I, claim, he and also rights his rights United States the Pennsylvania that permanently when Pennsylvania law does carrying 2 the to 8-17). the of term according and (~25) of a firearm Second Amendment license Section for under primary Amendments I, 106(b) (6). § carry a Constitution violated and impose as (a) (2). imprisonment 922 (g) (1). § States Constitution not violation felony of the & ineligible to violated Pennsylvania by charging a under firearm classified 6106(a) (1) §§ Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution alleges criminal instead of as a Pa.C.S. a Under Pennsylvania another imprisonment. was 18 Pennsylvania Amendment carrying 6106 (a) (2) . degree, 18 by a misdemeanor of the first degree is punishable by five Because Act § offense, misdemeanor of the first third Royer was found guilty of violating an unlicensed firearm (<][19-20) . Royer subjected him to the Eighth cruel Section contends and unusual Amendment I, Article further to 13 the of States Pennsylvania causing the permanent loss of his gun rights Additionally, numerous allegations this action, in this Royer against has entities in violation of Constitution and Constitution, by that in are his not complaint parties to and various claims that are not legally cognizable proceeding. He has (<][22). included For instance, Royer Clause challenge to the federal stat ute, 30) . Pennsylvania punishment United the that also makes numerous due mentions 18 U. S. C. process a Commerce 922 § challenges (<][<][18, to the proceedings held in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County related to the instant for abuse of a corpse a Fourth connection These Amendment with (<][<][27-29, challenge both allegations firearms are of offense, 31-35, to those unrelated Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and to his 37-39, 43-53), as well as various searches criminal cases to Royer's conviction suit conducted (<][36, in 40-42). against the are not properly raised apart from the state criminal cases, and are thus being stricken sua sponte as immaterial and impertinent pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (f) (1) . 3 II. LEGAL AUTHORITY The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has moved to dismiss Royer's complaint 12(b) (1) and 12(b)(6). 12 (b) (1) is filed "facial" challenge under Where, prior to to the Cardio-Med. Associates, F.2d 68, (3d Cir. 75 Federal 1983). of here, a as an answer, court I s Ltd. Rules v. Civil motion it is subject matter Crozer-Chester Procedure under Rule considered a jurisdiction. Med. Ctr., 721 In reviewing a facial challenge, a court must dismiss a plaintiff's claim if the allegations on the face of the complaint, most favorable to taken as the true, non-moving and viewed in party do not the light allege facts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court. 399 Li The v. U.S. Postal disposition 561 (3d Cir. 2005); 33 F.3d 259, 260 (3d Cir. 1994). motion purely legal Oep't reviewing dismiss sufficient of Veterans Affairs, a claim a motion if factual matter, the under Rule "complaint 426 129 S.Ct. U.S. Corp. v. under either rule, Twombly, 550 12 (b) (6), [does accepted as true, to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Atlantic a is F.3d (3d Cir. 2005). In must such Cudjoe v. determination. 241, 244 of 558, a Servo F.3d In to not] a contain 'state a Ashcroft v. 1937, 1949 (2009) U.S. 544, 570 court claim Iqbal, (quoting Bell (2007)). Thus, we look to the face of the complaint and take 4 its allegations as true. must construe his sua sponte Parker, complaint unless 363 Because Royer is proceeding pro se, such F.3d 229, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 liberally and grant amendment 234-36 would (3d Cir. be leave to amend futile. 2004); we Alston Shane v. v. Fauver, (3d Cir. 2000). III. DISCUSSION Under Constitution, court by state. F.3d 190, including 195 Lavia v. (3d Cir. 62, jurisdictional subject can citizens, (2001); 528 U.S. Regents, Corp., Amendment to the United citizens of matter immunity; lost or pursuant to a Commonwealth of 2000) 72-73 bar (citing (2000)). which jurisdiction." 77 F.3d 690, be States that Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 363-64 "a Eleventh states and their agents cannot be sued in federal private 356, is the only (2 ) 693 n.2, if: (I) Congress Kimel the deprives (3d Cir. abrogated 5 v. Florida federal v. Bd. the courts Allegheny 1996). 224 of of Ludlum Such immunity has waived states' legislative power. 224 F.3d at 195; Seminole Tribe of Florida v. 44, 55-56 (1996). Pennsylvania, Commonwealth valid exercise of i ts 531 U.S. State sovereign immunity Blanciak 694 same Florida, its immunity Lavia, 517 U.S. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has, by statute, expressly declined to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pa.C.S. 8521(b) § 42 ("Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to waive the immunity of the Commonwealth from suit in Federal courts guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment..."). Congress did not abrogate the states' sovereign immunity through enactment of 42 U.S.C. 345 (1979) see also Atkin v. i Cir. May 3, Appx. 20, Eleventh 1983. § 2011); 25 Cir. Amendment Commonwealth, nor Johnson, Hurst v. (3d Quern v. immunity Because has by 440 U.S. 2011 WL 1654665, City of Rehoboth 2008). abrogated Jordan, been Beach, the we *1 (3d 288 Fed. Commonwealth's neither Congress, 332, waived have by no the subject matter jurisdiction over Royer's claims against Pennsylvan Furthermore, because neither a state, nor a state agency, is a "person" for purposes of section 1983, Royer cannot state a claim upon Commonweal th or which its relief agents. Will can v. be granted Michigan against Dep't of the State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). As with prejudice, amendment, futile. we grant the motion to dismiss. and because Foman v. Har lee Corp. 251 such, (3d Cir. v. without any the amendment Davis, 371 U.S. opportunity of this 178, 2007); Grayson v. (1962); Inc., Mayview State 6 a complaint 182 Pote Concrete Contractors, for We do so curative would be Fletcher- 482 F. 3d 247, Hosp., 293 F.3d .. " 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). Royer has been Commonwealth is jurisdictionally immune barred. jurisdictional defect. "person" wi thin from the No his the suit, making amendment In addition, meaning that As detailed above, complaint is against the Commonwealth. of clear could the claim overcome that the Commonwealth is not a section 1983, making it impossible for Royer to amend his complaint in order to state a valid section 1983 claim. in Royer's dismissal complaint, with Thus, given the nature of the defects any prejudice amendment would be appropriate under the futile, making circumstances, even though Royer is proceeding pro se. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Royer's complaint, with prejudice. An appropriate order will with this memorandum. 7 be filed contemporaneously IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHIL ROYER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-0318 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant. AND ORDERED NOW, that the C:ay this of July, 2011, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's it is HEREBY motion to dismiss [doc. no. 7] is GRANTED, with prejudice. ~ cc: All Counsel of Record _____________________ ' C.J.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
