DIXON v. OSA GLOBAL SECURITY
2:11-cv-01654
W.D. Pa.Jul 12, 2012Background
- This is a §1983 civil rights action filed pro se by Leonard and December L. Dixon against Penn Hills School District, OSA Global Security, and the Municipality of Penn Hills in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- OSA Global Security was not served; the Municipality answered; the School District moved to dismiss (Rules 12(b)(6)).
- Plaintiffs allege violations including unreasonable searches and seizures, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, due process, and compulsory process.
- The court applies Twombly/Iqbal two-step plausibility review to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and liberally construes pro se pleadings.
- Plaintiffs describe two incidents: February 17, 2011 (search/seizure and expulsion of student Dixon) and March 28, 2011 (arrest and probable cause hearing), but plead no concrete facts against the School District.
- The court grants leave to amend if plaintiffs wish to correct deficiencies, and warns about proper service under Rule 4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the School District is plausibly liable under §1983. | Dixon asserts constitutional rights were violated during school disciplinary actions. | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing School District involvement or rights violations. | Dismissal of claims against the School District affirmed. |
| Are February 17, 2011 events sufficiently alleged to entitle relief? | Officer Napier conducted a search/seizure; principal Gavin continued; expulsion occurred; rights violated. | No substantive facts showing how conduct violated rights; allegations are conclusory. | Claims arising from Feb. 17, 2011 dismissed for lack of factual support. |
| Are March 28, 2011 events sufficiently alleged to entitle relief? | Arrest of Dixon and probable cause hearing allegedly violated rights. | School District not involved; inadequate facts tying events to District liability. | Claims arising from March 28, 2011 dismissed. |
| Should plaintiffs be allowed to amend the complaint? | Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend to cure deficiencies. | Amendment may be futile; district court should manage pleading defects. | Plaintiffs granted leave to amend; amendment due by a specified deadline or risk dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleadings require more than mere allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead plausible claims, not merely legal conclusions)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (two-step plausibility analysis for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (liberality toward pro se pleadings; leave to amend when not futile)
- Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004) (curative amendment required when dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Phillips v. Co. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 8 requires plausible entitlement to relief, not bare assertions)
- Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir. 1996) (to establish §1983, plaintiff must show rights violation by a state actor)
- City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (§1983 liability requires deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution)