Rotharmel v. Dauphin County Children and Youth Services
4:25-cv-00235
| M.D. Penn. | Jul 21, 2025Background
- Alvin and Heather Rotharmel, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights lawsuit against various county child welfare agencies and individuals, alleging due process violations related to the removal of their children during a state custody proceeding.
- Their initial complaint was dismissed without prejudice due to Rule 8 violations and Younger abstention, as the state custody action was ongoing.
- After state proceedings concluded, the Rotharmels filed an amended complaint, which was identical to an amended complaint in a previously filed federal case (4:24-CV-1908) involving the same underlying custody issues.
- The plaintiffs sought to add numerous additional defendants—many with no apparent factual connection to the Northumberland County custody matter, and offered insufficient facts regarding these parties' alleged misconduct.
- The amended complaint was reviewed under the statutory screening procedure for in forma pauperis litigants, requiring the court to dismiss complaints that fail to state a claim or are duplicative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicative complaint | Amended complaint valid, asserts new/ongoing constitutional violations | The complaint duplicates an already pending federal lawsuit | Dismissed as duplicative |
| Sufficiency under Rule 8 | Plaintiffs entitled to relief; listed wrongdoers involved in custody case | Complaints lack plausible factual allegations, fails Rule 8 standard | Found to lack sufficient detail, supports dismissal |
| Standing of new defendants | New defendants contributed to harm (variously alleged) | No factual connection shown between new parties and custody matter | No sufficient showing of involvement |
| Representation by counsel | Claimed they are now represented by an elite law firm | Misrepresentation; AI tool cited instead of actual counsel | Court warned pro se plaintiffs over misrepresentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (federal pleading must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (sets forth two-step analysis for failure to state a claim after Iqbal)
- Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250 (district courts should separate facts from legal conclusions when assessing complaints)
- Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (court may consider public record and attached exhibits in motion to dismiss)
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192 (undisputedly authentic documents attached to motions to dismiss may be considered)