SCARBO v. ATHENA
2:25-cv-03308
| E.D. Pa. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Deanna Scarbo, acting pro se, sued her former landlord (Royal Athena d/b/a The Yard at Pencoyd Landing), the landlord’s attorney, and the local Magisterial District Court after being evicted and subsequently locked out of her unit.
- Scarbo claimed violations of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process violations, unlawful seizure of property, abuse of process, and collusion.
- She sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, plus a temporary restraining order to restore her possession and access to her former unit.
- The eviction judgment and subsequent order for possession were both entered in Pennsylvania state court; Scarbo unsuccessfully appealed both orders.
- The federal court granted Scarbo leave to proceed in forma pauperis, reviewed her complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (failure to state a claim), and dismissed her claims for various legal reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can state courts/officials be sued for damages under §1983? | Scarbo seeks damages from Magisterial District Court for eviction orders. | Sovereign immunity/E1eventh Amendment bars such suits; state not a "person" under §1983. | Claims against Magisterial District Court for money damages dismissed. |
| Can federal courts enjoin state-court eviction proceedings? | Scarbo seeks a TRO/ injunction to return to her apartment and prevent enforcement of state court orders. | Federal statute (Anti-Injunction Act) generally prohibits federal courts from interfering with state court proceedings. | Requests for injunctive relief denied as barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. |
| Can federal courts issue declaratory relief after state-court action? | Scarbo seeks declaration that state-court eviction violated her rights. | Declaratory judgments not meant to address past conduct; not appropriate post hoc. | Request for declaratory relief dismissed. |
| Are private landlords/lawyers "state actors" under §1983? | Scarbo alleges landlord and attorney acted under color of law by filing/participating in eviction. | Merely resorting to court or acting as counsel does not make a private party a state actor. | §1983 claims against landlord and attorney dismissed for lack of state action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (States are not "persons" under § 1983 and are immune from such suits.)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Federal pleading standard requires plausible claims, not conclusory allegations.)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (11th Amendment bars federal suits against states for monetary relief.)
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (Private parties do not become state actors by resorting to courts.)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (Defines requirements for state action under § 1983.)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Judicial immunity bars damages claims against judges for acts in judicial capacity.)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281 (Strictly construes exceptions to Anti-Injunction Act's bar on federal interference with state proceedings.)