Alex Pierre v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ______________
    No. 18-1592
    ______________
    ALEX H. PIERRE,
    Appellant
    v.
    SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    ______________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civ. No. 2-17-cv-05327)
    Honorable Joel H. Slomsky, District Judge
    ______________
    Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    October 22, 2018
    BEFORE: KRAUSE, COWEN, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: March 8, 2019)
    ______________
    OPINION*
    ______________
    ____________________
    * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
    does not constitute binding precedent.
    COWEN, Circuit Judge.
    Alex H. Pierre appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his “Motion for Recusal and Amendment of
    Complaint.” We will affirm.
    I.
    Acting pro se, Pierre, an attorney who was suspended from the practice of law by
    the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, brought this action against the state supreme court
    and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. According to Pierre, he could not be
    reinstated until he repaid in full (with interest) a disbursement made by the Pennsylvania
    Lawyers Fund for Client Security to his former client. He was unable to do so.
    Meanwhile, he initiated a civil action against his landlord in the Philadelphia Court of
    Common Pleas, which granted judgment on the pleadings against Pierre. Concluding that
    the state trial court committed an abuse of discretion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court
    reversed. The state suit proceeded to trial, where a jury eventually rendered a verdict
    against Pierre. According to Pierre:
    A myriad of irregularities appeared at trial, with the trial court having ex
    parte communications in the removal of two jurors, ignoring case law cited
    for the proposition [that] replacement value is the measure of damages for
    items unlawfully discarded by a landlord after eviction and the awardability
    of punitive damages therefor, disregarding [an] unambiguous attorney
    admission [that] she was no agent of the landlord for purposes of tortious
    interference, twice instructing the jury not to award compensatory damages
    for the discarded goods, the jury having returned with a question on
    awarding damages for the quantity of items unlawfully trashed, as well as
    denying [a] post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law despite the
    absence of fact questions and [a] new trial despite controlling Pennsylvania
    Supreme Court law demanding [the] same for improper juror removals.
    2
    (Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 (citing Complaint at ¶¶ 24-27 (ECF No. 6)).) The Pennsylvania
    Superior Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Pierre’s petition for
    allowance of appeal.
    On January 3, 2018, the District Court granted Pierre leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis. However, it dismissed the complaint pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i)
    for frivolousness and 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which
    relief may be granted. The District Court Clerk was directed to close the case.
    According to the District Court, Pierre’s 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claims that the Supreme Court
    of Pennsylvania violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and the
    Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were legally
    baseless on account of the Eleventh Amendment and because a state is not considered a
    person for purposes of § 1983. It also rejected his breach of contract claims on the
    grounds that a judicial administration rule set forth in Pennsylvania’s Administrative
    Code did not constitute a contract.
    Pierre responded to the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint by filing a
    series of unsuccessful reconsideration motions through which Pierre also sought to
    amend his federal complaint. On January 19, 2018, the District Court denied Pierre’s
    first motion for reconsideration. Considering the amended complaint he sought to file
    with this motion, it determined that amendment would be futile, explaining, inter alia,
    that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to the extent Pierre
    challenged and sought review of the state courts’ judgments and that the Pennsylvania
    Supreme Court Prothonotary was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. On January 31,
    3
    2018, the District Court denied his “Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of
    Complaint Redux.” In this motion, Pierre again attempted to file an amended complaint,
    only this time he sought to raise claims against the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court concluded that
    the proposed amendment would be futile. “Although Mr. Pierre alleges that he is of
    African-American descent, the facts alleged in his proposed amended complaint do not
    provide a plausible basis for concluding that he was intentionally discriminated against
    based on his race.” (January 31, 2018 Order at 2 n.1 (ECF No. 10).) Finally, Pierre filed
    a “Motion for Recusal and Amendment of Complaint,” which was denied on February
    16, 2018. According to the District Court, disagreement with a judge’s rulings did not
    furnish a sufficient basis for recusal, Pierre failed to show any basis for reconsideration,
    and nothing in his motion altered the District Court’s conclusion that the facts alleged in
    his proposed amended complaint did not plausibly establish intentional discrimination on
    the basis of race.
    II.
    According to Pierre, the District Court abused its “discretion by treating an
    indigent litigant differently in denying him meaningful access to the federal courts with
    dismissal of the complaint where amendment could cure.”1 (Appellant’s Brief at 5.) He
    contends that futility could not justify the District Court’s denial of leave to amend
    because it acknowledged that a claim may be asserted under Title VI and that the District
    1
    The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
    and 1332. We have appellate jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    4
    Court failed to undertake the proper three-step plausibility analysis under Bell Atlantic
    Corp. v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
     (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
     (2009).
    See, e.g., Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 
    809 F.3d 780
    , 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (explaining
    that courts must take note of legal elements, then identify allegations that are not entitled
    to assumption of truth because they are no more than conclusions, and finally determine
    whether remaining well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly give rise to entitlement to
    relief). Purportedly, Pierre alleged “the deliberate attempt on the part of the State courts
    under the totality of circumstances to keep one black attorney off its rolls.” (Appellant’s
    Brief at 10.)
    We conclude that the District Court applied the appropriate legal standards in this
    pro se in forma pauperis proceeding. In particular, it properly disposed of Pierre’s Title
    VI allegations, which were proffered for the first time as part of his second motion for
    reconsideration. In its initial ruling dismissing his complaint, the District Court
    recognized that. “[t]o survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must
    contain ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
    plausible on its face.’” Pierre v. Supreme Court of Pa., No. 17-5327, 
    2018 WL 283248
    ,
    at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. at 678
    ). “‘[M]ere conclusory
    statements[ ] do not suffice.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. at 678
    ). Subsequently, it
    properly considered whether Pierre’s proposed amendments would be futile. See, e.g., In
    re Adams Golf, Inc. Sec. Litig., 
    381 F.3d 267
    , 280 (3d Cir. 2004). “His proposed
    amended complaint is based on essentially the same facts alleged in his prior pleadings
    except he now seeks to raise claims against the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant
    5
    to Title VI, which prohibits intentional race discrimination in any program that receives
    federal funding.” (January 31, 2018 Order at 2 n.1 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Alexander
    v. Sandoval, 
    532 U.S. 275
    , 282-83 (2001)).) We agree that the proposed pleading failed
    to raise “a reasonable inference that discovery will reveal evidence of the elements
    necessary to establish” intentional discrimination by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    based on race. Connelly, 809 F.3d at 793. The proffered complaint did not allege that
    Pierre ever notified the state appellate courts that he was the victim of racial bias on the
    part of the state trial court in the landlord-tenant dispute, point to any specific expressions
    of racial animus, or provide any intimation of disparate treatment of litigants because of
    their race.2 See, e.g., Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 
    767 F.3d 247
    , 272-73 (3d Cir.
    2014) (recognizing that plaintiffs may establish intentional discrimination under Title VI
    with showing of deliberate indifference but explaining that deliberate indifference
    requires actual as opposed to constructive knowledge).
    III.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
    2
    We note that the proposed amended complaint alleged that the disciplinary rule
    requiring payments of fund obligations before reinstatement (with interest) is
    discriminatory in application because it prejudices minority attorneys who make up a
    disproportionate percentage of less well-heeled attorneys. However, Pierre does not
    mention this cursory allegation in his appellate brief.
    6