MINA v. HOGAN et al, No. 2:2014mc00222 - Document 3 (E.D. Pa. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 2/10/15. 2/10/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(er, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MINA v. HOGAN et al Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY STOCKER MINA, Plaintif, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-MC-222 v. DAWSON R. MUTH, GOLDBERG, MEANIX, MUTH & MCCALLIN LAW FIRM, JUDGE HOWARD RILEY, and COURT REPORT HANDY, Deendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION February 10, 2015 Smith, J. This matter has come beore the court on an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") and a motion or relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by the pro se plainti. In the motion for relief, the plaintif is essentially seeking relief from an order and judgment entered in a state-court civil action. Although it appears that the plaintif is entitled to proceed IFP, his attempt to use Rule 60(b) to overtun a state-court civil order and judgment is wholly improper and, as such, the court grants the application to proceed IFP but denies the motion for relief. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action represents one of multiple actions iled by the pro se plaintif, Anthony 1 Stocker Mina, in September 2014. On September 11, 2014, the plaintiff iled an application in this case to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion or relief rom judgment. See Doc. No. 1. In the motion for relief, the plaintif seeks relief rom (1) a September 23, 2011 order entered by the Honorable Howard Riley of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, and (2) a 1 His other actions are docketed at Civil Action Nos. 14-mc-221, 14-mc-254, and 14-mc-259. Dockets.Justia.com November 15, 2011 praecipe or judgment of non pros. & Ex. A. 2 See Motion or Relief rom J. at 3, 4 It appears that the order and the praecipe generally relate to the plaintiff apparently failing to ile certificates of merit in an underlying state-court action, Mina v. Muth, No. 10-3366 (C.P. Chester), as required by Rule 1042 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. See i. at Ex. A. II. DISCUSSION As the plaintif has sought to proceed IFP, the court will address the application to proceed IFP beore addressing the merits of the motion or relie. A. The IFP Motion Regarding applications to proceed informa pauperis, the court notes that any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or deense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of ees or security thereor, by a person who submits n afidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such ees or give security thereor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). When addressing applications to proceed informa pauperis under section 1915, district courts undertake a two-step analysis: "First, the district court evaluates a litigant's inancial status and determines whether [he or she] is eligible to proceed informa pauperis under § 1915(a). Second, the court assesses the [action] under§ 1915[(e)(2)] to determine whether it is rivolous." Roman v. Jefes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 3 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1976) (alterations added)). 2 Despite the explicit reerence to these orders serving as the focus of the request for relief, the plaintif references and attaches documents relating to multiple other actions in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. See, e.g., Mot. or Relief at ii! 6, 10 & Exs. B-D. Additionally, despite the reference to the order and judgment complained of, the plaintiff uses a signiicant number of paragraphs in his motion to discuss occurrences in these other cases. See, e.g., id at ii! 10-35. 3 The Roman court reerenced the ormer version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which stated that "[t]he court may request an attoney to represent any such person unable to employ counsel and may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is rivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § l 915(d) (1990) (redesignated as Section l 9 l 5(e) by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-135, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)). The portion of 2 Concening the litigant's inancial status, the litigant must establish that he or she is unable to pay the costs of suit. Cir. 1989). Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Generally, where a plaintiff iles an affidavit of poverty, the district court should accord the plaintif a preliminary right to proceed in forma pauperis. F.2d 1203, 1203 (3d Cir. 1969) (citing Lockhart v. Lawson v. Prasse, 411 D'Urso, 408 F.2d 354 (3d Cir. 1969)). Here, ater reviewing the IFP Motion, it appears that the plaintif is unable to pay the costs of suit. Thereore, the court grants the plaintif leave to proceed in forma pauperis. B. Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Because the court has granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must engage in the second part of the two-part analysis and examine whether this action is rivolous or ails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) (providing that "[n]otwithstanding any iling ee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- ... (B) the action or appeal-- (i) is rivolous or malicious; [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted"). An action is frivolous under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or act," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is legally baseless if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). Deutsch v. United In addressing whether a pro se plaintifs action is rivolous, the court must liberally construe the allegations in the operative document. See Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339-40 (3d Cir. 2011) (discussing review of complaint). Section 1915(d) which allowed the district court to dismiss frivolous at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See 28 U.S.C. 4 informa pauperis complaints is now codified pauperis § l 9 l 5(e)(2)(B)(i) (stating rivolous nature of informa complaint is ground for dismissal). 4 Regarding the analysis under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the standard for dismissing an action for failure to state a claim pursuant to this subsection is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. See 1999) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for ailure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Thus, to survive dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual 3 As indicated above, the plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) provides as follows: (b) Grounds or Relief rom a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative rom a final judgment, order, or proceeding or the ollowing reasons: (1) mistake, inadvetence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move or a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) raud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justiies reliel,] Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Although Rule 60(b) provides the aorementioned grounds or relief from a final judgment or order, this rule is inapplicable to state-court proceedings. See, e.g., Graham v. South Carolina, CA., No. 6:11-595, 2012 WL 527606, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2012) ("Petitioner misunderstands the import of Rule 60(b), which provides that a ederal district court may provide relief rom its own civil judgments. Rule 60(b) does not authorize a ederal district court to review a state criminal conviction and judgment, as is the case here."). In particular, any such attempt would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Reardon v. Leason, 408 F. App'x 551, 553 (3d Cir. 2010) ("[B]ecause [the plaintiff] is effectively asking the District Court to void a state court conviction, he is barred from doing so under the Rooker-Feldman matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its ace."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 4 doctrine." (citing Great W Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir. 2010)); Burnett v. Amrein, 243 F. App'x 393, 395 (10th Cir. 2007) (concluding district court correctly denied plaintifs' motion to vacate state-court civil judgment insofar as "Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) does not authorize a ederal court to relieve the [plaintifs] of a judgment entered in state court . ..because any such action would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine." (intenal quotations and citations omitted)). 5 Accordingly, because Rule 60(b) does not provide a vehicle for the type of relief that the plaintif seeks, i.e. the overturning or vacation of a state-court order and judgment, this action is rivolous and, as such, the court denies the motion and dismisses this action with prejudice. III. CONCLUSION The plaintif has established that, or purposes of this action, he is entitled to proceed IF P. Nonetheless, the plaintif may not use Rule 60(b) to attempt to overturn or vacate the order and judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. Accordingly, the court denies the motion seeking relief under Rule 60(b) and dismisses this action with prejudice. An appropriate order follows. EDWARD G. SMITH, J. 5 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine "established the principle that ederal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that Great W Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at 165. are essentially appeals rom state-court judgments." 5
]]>
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.
