Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-5722 (JBS).
September 7, 2004
Mr. Clarence Harrison, Mrs. Sylvia Harrison, Wilmington, DE, Plaintiffs pro se.
Dean J. Buono, Esq., MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN COURTNEY, P.C., Pennsauken, NJ, Attorney for Defendants.
OPINION
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants' motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants' motion will be granted. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for default judgment, which will be dismissed as moot.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 15, 2003, alleging cursorily damages resulting from discrimination, violation of civil and constitutional rights, and various alleged threats. An Amended Complaint was filed January 5, 2004. The Amended Complaint consists of twelve pages. One of the documents composing this amendment, entitled "Facts to Support the Complaint and Exhibits," lists eight exhibits; however, only Exhibits One, Two and Five appear to be attached.According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, on or about 1989 Plaintiffs purchased Block 59 Lot 2 in Mannington Township, which contained 20.9 acres of open land. Plaintiffs indicate that this track of land was purchased for the sole purpose of building a home. In early to mid 1990, Plaintiffs positioned a double trailer on the property. On October 5, 1990, Mannington Township, by way of letter, informed Plaintiff Clarence Harrison that he was in direct violation of the township zoning ordinances, specifically chapter 3, article 1, section 3.1. Plaintiffs subsequently began cleaning up the area to make it suitable for the building of their new home.
DISCUSSION
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted must be denied "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). A district court must accept any and all reasonable inferences derived from those facts. Unger v. Nat'l Residents Corp. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 761 F. Supp. 1100, 1107 (D.N.J. 1991); Gutman v. Howard Sav. Bank, 748 F. Supp. 254, 260 (D.N.J. 1990). Further, the court must view all allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).
It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead evidence, and it is not necessary to plead the facts that serve as the basis for the claim. Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434, 446 (3d Cir. 1977); In re Midlantic Corp. Shareholder Litigation, 758 F. Supp. 226, 230 (D.N.J. 1990). A motion to dismiss is appropriate, however, where there is no legal basis for recovery.See Griesenbeck v. American Tobacco Co., 897 F. Supp. 815, 819 (D.N.J. 1995) (stating that "a plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim if a defendant demonstrates beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief").
The question before the court is not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail; rather, it is whether they can prove any set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Therefore, in deciding a motion to dismiss, a court should look to the face of the complaint and decide whether, taking all of the allegations of fact as true and construing them in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, plaintiff's allegations state a legal claim. Markowitz, 906 F.2d at 103. Only the allegations in the complaint, matters of public record, orders, and exhibits attached to the complaint matter, are taken into consideration.Chester County Intermediate Unit v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield, 896 F.2d 808, 812 (3d Cir. 1990).
Although Plaintiffs state that "Defendants, and each of them, were guilty of discrimination and violation of civil rights and Article 14 of the Constitution," Plaintiffs make no specific reference as to what each and every one of the various named Defendants is alleged to have done in violation of the law. (See Amended Complaint, ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs, at no time, charge any of the named Defendants with a legal wrong or action for which relief can be granted. At most, Plaintiffs state only that Defendants Donald C. Asay and George B. Wright told Plaintiff Clarence Harrison that he "would never own the meadow." (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Plaintiffs' Complaint contains various statements of things that have happened since purchasing the property in Mannington Township. Indeed, the Complaint recites a laundry list of grievances, referencing a number of exhibits: bottles on the land, dead animals on the property, and threats both made and carried out. (Amended Compl., Ex. List.) Plaintiffs, however, make no specific allegations against Defendants as to their performing of these acts. Moreover, though Plaintiffs reference a number of exhibits, the majority are not attached to their Complaint. As Plaintiffs have failed to state what each named defendant has done wrong, no legal cause of action has been set forth and the Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.
Finally, it is unclear whether service of process has been properly effectuated in this case. Though the docket reflects summonses returned executed for each of the named Defendants, counsel for Defendants, in his Certification, states that "service was made to [him] personally, in [his] office on March 10, 2004 via United States Marshall." (Certification of Counsel, ¶ 11.) However, counsel states that he is not a named representative nor authorized to accept service on anyone's behalf; counsel represents that service has never been made on any of the individually named Defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted and Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment will be dismissed as moot. The accompanying Order is entered.ORDER
This matter having come before the Court upon Defendants' motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment; and the Court having considered the submissions of the parties; and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion of today's date; and for good cause shown;IT IS this 7th day of September, 2004 hereby
ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss [Docket Item No. 16-1] shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED ; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment [Docket Item No. 17-1] shall be, and hereby is, DISMISSED AS MOOT ; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case upon its docket.