GOLDSMITH v. CBS TV BROADCASTING, PITTSBURGH, INC, 2:13-cv-00478

Background

Plaintiff Kenneth Goldsmith, proceeding pro se and IFP, sued his former landlord (Lucey), Allegheny County officials, KDKA/CBS personnel, and various others over his eviction and a televised report about it.
Goldsmith alleges he is a hoarder (a disability) and that Lucey and others conspired with sheriffs and KDKA to allow reporters into his unit during eviction, violating § 1983 and state law torts; he also asserts ADA and FHA reasonable-accommodation claims against Lucey.
The Court previously screened and dismissed parts of his original complaint and permitted an amended complaint; Goldsmith sought further amendment and marshal service, which the Court considered.
The Court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and concluded Goldsmith has had sufficient opportunities to amend; further amendment is disfavored absent new evidence or law.
The Court dismissed numerous defendants and claims with prejudice for lack of plausible factual allegations linking them to the alleged conspiracy or wrongdoing, but allowed limited federal and related state-law claims to proceed against a narrowed set of defendants.
The Court ordered U.S. Marshal service for the remaining defendants (Lucey, Deputy Shim, Chongaway, Griffin, Lawson, and CBS/KDKA entities) once plaintiff provides directions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants conspired with sheriffs to permit media entry and thereby violated § 1983	Goldsmith: Lucey, sheriffs, a health-dept supervisor, and KDKA reporters coordinated eviction/entry "under color of state law"	Defendants: lack of plausible facts tying many defendants to any state-action conspiracy	Court: § 1983 conspiracy claim plausibly alleged only as to Lucey, Deputy Shim, Chongaway, and reporter Griffin; permitted to proceed against them
Whether ADA/FHA reasonable-accommodation claims are stated	Goldsmith: as a hoarder (disability) he requested more time/storage and was unlawfully evicted/retaliated against	Defendants: (implicitly) accommodation not requested or unreasonable; no legal support shown	Court: ADA and FHAA claims survive only against landlord Lucey for screening purposes; factual merit unresolved
Whether numerous named defendants and claims should be dismissed for failure to plead plausibly	Goldsmith: various relational or status-based allegations sufficed to name many individuals/organizations	Defendants: mere association, death, or studio anchoring do not establish involvement or state action	Court: dismissed with prejudice many defendants (e.g., Lampenfelds, Rhoads, Tkacik, Leary, Smith, Rice, Allegheny County, Sheriffs Office, deceased Fersch) for failure to state plausible claims
Whether Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (conversion, warranty of habitability, breach of quiet enjoyment, IIED/NIED, "tabloid outrage")	Goldsmith: asserts multiple state torts arising from eviction and broadcast	Defendants: federal court should not retain peripheral state-law landlord/tenant and tort claims	Court: declined supplemental jurisdiction over several state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice; IIED/NIED and "tabloid outrage" dismissed with prejudice for failure to state claim

Key Cases Cited

Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S. 808 (recognition that media access in execution of legal process can raise Fourth Amendment/state-action issues)
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (law that media presence during execution of process may implicate constitutional protections)
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (leave-to-amend requirements for pro se plaintiffs)
Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1283 (3d Cir. 1994) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (reasonable-accommodation requirement limited to reasonable measures)
Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096 (3d Cir.) (burden-shifting framework for accommodation claims)
Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff initial burden showing necessity of accommodation)
Mengine v. Runyon, 114 F.3d 415 (3d Cir.) (no actionable claim where accommodation could not have worked)
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (statutory failure to accommodate can be discrimination)
Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, 124 F.3d 597 (4th Cir.) (necessity requirement for accommodation claims)
Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2002) (vague allegations insufficient to state plausible claims)