Thermuthis Lee v. Leonard Petrolichio
697 F. App'x 112
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Thermuthis Lee filed a 36-count amended complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging that Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) manager Leonard Petrolichio, PHA attorney Andrew Kenis, the PHA, and neighbor-defendants Jeanette Tomlin and Khalil Smith caused her to be forced out of public housing after years of harassment by Tomlin and Smith.
- Lee claimed Petrolichio and the PHA failed to evict nuisance tenants and interfered with her private criminal complaints against Tomlin and Smith, leading to acquittals in 2011 bench trials.
- While Lee sought to add the PHA as a defendant, the case was removed to federal court on federal-question jurisdiction based on a Section 1983 claim (Count 36).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed with prejudice as time-barred and for failure to state a § 1983 claim, finding no plausible state action or municipal policy alleged and that amendment would be futile.
- The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims; Lee appealed pro se and also sought to expand the record with videotapes and documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee’s § 1983 claims are timely under Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations | Lee: discrete PHA lease-termination violations occurred as late as Dec. 31, 2014, bringing claims within the two-year limitations period | Defendants: claims accrued earlier and are time-barred | Court: did not decide statute of limitations because dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper |
| Whether Lee alleged state action sufficient for § 1983 liability | Lee: PHA/manager failed to follow PHA procedures and refused to evict nuisance tenants, causing deprivation | Defendants: there is no state action; Tomlin/Smith are private actors; PHA not shown to have an official policy or custom | Held: Lee failed to plausibly allege state action or a municipal policy/custom; § 1983 claim dismissed |
| Whether failure to follow state procedures alone gives rise to a due process violation | Lee: alleges deprivation via PHA’s unauthorized failure to follow eviction procedures | Defendants: mere failure to follow procedures does not create a constitutional violation | Held: Mere unauthorized failure to follow state procedures does not constitute a due-process deprivation (citing precedent) |
| Whether federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Lee: sought relief on pendent state-law claims | Defendants: federal claims dismissed, so pendent claims should be dismissed | Held: District Court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (plenary review standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Reese v. Kennedy, 865 F.2d 186 (8th Cir. 1989) (unauthorized failure to follow state eviction procedures does not, by itself, create a due-process deprivation)
- McGovern v. City of Philadelphia, 554 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2009) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (plaintiff’s choice to stand on pleadings and standard for leave to amend after dismissal)