LILLEY V. DCD HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SENATOR TOOMEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN R. LILLEY, JR., )

)

Plaintiff )

)

Case No. 1:22-cv-01

)

v. )

)

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DCD HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES )

SENATOR TOOMEY OF PA., )

)

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

Plaintiff John Lilley filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No.

1] along with a proposed original complaint on January 3, 2022. Based on Plaintiff’s averments

in the motion, it appears that he is without sufficient funds to pay the filing and administrative

fees associated with this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted.

II. Standard of Review

Because Plaintiff is seeking redress “from a governmental entity or officer or employee

of a governmental entity,” his pleadings are subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. §

1915A. In pertinent part, § 1915A provides that a court “shall . . . dismiss the complaint, or any

portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). In performing this mandatory

screening function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. County of Allegheny, 568

F.Supp.2d 579, 587-89 (W.D. Pa. 2008).

III. Discussion and Review of Plaintiff’s Filings

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed this action on January 3, 2022.1 To the extent any factual

allegations were provided, they are as follows:

The liability of bankruptcy discharge has been exceeded on civil litigation

nonprofit. For false arrest and CVF Act 84.

I believe relief goes to me for civil rights violations of 16 valid times of false

imprisonment. As pleader and Plaintiff opinion of the Federal courts and Clerk of

Court.

Federal offense procedure 8 police dept. complaint filing is in debt with habeas

relief. Effective date. Stenography and Transcript explaining offense date

convictions … [illegible]

ECF No. 1-1, page 4. The only Defendant named is Pat Toomey. This Court takes judicial

notice that Pat Toomey is a United States Senator representing the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. See www.toomey.senate.gov.

On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed another document in which he complains:

I accuse two lone defendants in their own work capacity for a 2003 arrest Michael

Dunlavey and a 2015 and 2016 arrest Robert A. Sambroak. Trial and sentence

judge Erie County for being punitively malicious and frivolous with no relief as a

civil rights violation offensively. Damage. Punitive no just cause. No civil rights.

They both failed to give me a mistrial. No civil rights of mistrial or just cause.

ECF No. 4. As relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages in the amount of

$7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

1 Plaintiff is a frequent filer in this Court having filed more than twenty cases in the last seven

months. All of the filings in Plaintiff’s other cases suffer from deficiencies similar to those

detailed herein. Mr. Lilley is the subject of a Vexatious Litigant Order. See ECF No. 6.

Two days later, Plaintiff filed another document in which he claims:

I actually in general believe you dismiss to the Court Clerks opinion with no

amend, leave, or further curative objection/response just cause or settlement

agreement mostly against the defendants as fail to prosecute them for the simple

fact that I file in forma pauperis and pro se as a purported litigant. I also want to

offer one amount for 18 cases. for agree with court only for monetary relief.

ECF No. 5. As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages of

$9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff made another filing in which he may be seeking to name

Attorney John P. Feroleto as a Defendant. The filing lists Attorney Feroleto as part of the Major

Crime Unit on the caption and then explains:

I would like to file this defendant for not giving me rights to pleading the fifth or

discovery of evidence. Civilly I believe I was cross-examined as slandered and

given no opportunity for qualified immunity based on my own opinion of my

incrimination or absolute prosecutorial immunity based on my plea agreement

incrimination for preliminary collateral relief or habeas corpus denial dismissal.

ECF No. 8.

Liberally construing his filings as we must due to his pro se status, and construing the

statements as allegations across all his filings2, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. Plaintiff has not made a single factual allegation against the original named

Defendant. Plaintiff only lists Senator Toomey in the caption and has not explained, even

tangentially, how Senator Toomey was personally involved in an alleged violation of any of his

civil rights, as he must in order to state a claim. See generally, Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d

2 Although an amended complaint “is a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate

complaint without reference to the complaint already filed” (Williams v. Ferdarko, 2018 WL

3653272, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2018)), this Court has examined all of Plaintiff’s filings in

this case together.

1195 (3d Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has provided no factual information whatsoever for this Court to

decipher any legitimate constitutional claim against the only originally named Defendant.

In his January 4th filing, Plaintiff focuses his grievances on two judges of the Court of

Common Pleas of Erie County: Judge Michael Dunlavey and (now deceased) Judge Robert

Sambroak. Plaintiff cannot state a claim against either Dunlavey or Sambroak as they are entitled

to immunity. “It is a well-settled principle of law that judges are generally immune from a suit

for money damages.” Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 2000). Judicial

immunity is an “immunity from suit, not just from an ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles

v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Judicial officers are immune from damage suits arising out of

their official duties. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). “A judge will not be deprived of

immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of

authority....” Id. at 356. See also Seigert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991). Plaintiff has not

made any factual allegation that any act by either judge was non-judicial in nature or taken

outside of his jurisdiction. VanTassel v. Lawrence County Domestic Relations Section, 659

F.Supp.2d 672, 695 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (judicial immunity can only be overcome if the judge's

actions are “nonjudicial in nature, or where such actions, while judicial in nature, are taken in the

complete absence of all jurisdiction.”). Again, Plaintiff fails to state a claim.

As to his March 30th filing and the naming of Attorney John Feroleto as a Defendant,

Plaintiff continues to fail to state a claim. Plaintiff does not explain how Attorney Feroleto was

personally involved in the violation of any rights. This Court also notes that Attorney Feroleto is

associated with the Major Crime Unit of the District Attorney’s Office in Erie County, New

York. See www2.erie.gov/da/index/major-crimes-unit.

Generally, if a civil rights complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim,

the Court should permit a curative amendment. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d

103 (32d Cir. 2002). However, the court “need not provide endless opportunities for amendment,

especially where such opportunity already has been enjoyed.” Baker v. Moon Area Sch. Dist.,

2018 WL 40571719, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2018) quoting Taylor v. Pilewski, 2008 WL

4861446, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2008).

Here, this Court has construed all of his filings together, thereby effectively allowing

Plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Moreover, Plaintiff has filed numerous other cases in this

Court and has been given the opportunity and detailed instructions on how to amend his original

complaints. Despite the detailed instructions and significant amounts of time to file, Plaintiff has

failed in each of his other cases to state a claim. Accordingly, the undersigned believes any such

opportunity to amend in this case would be futile. Because the undersigned concludes, as a

matter of law, that Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional or statutory violation based on any

of the factual statements in any of his filings in this case, leave to amend is futile. An appropriate

Order follows this Memorandum Opinion.