Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01459/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01459-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 14-1459

________________

LEONARD AMEIKA; THERESA AMEIKA; JOSEPH BOYKO, SR.;

PAULA WARD-BOYKO; JAMES CHROPOWICKI; ADA CHROPOWICKI; 

WILLIAM FIELD; BERNARD GOLUBIEWSK; LISA GOLUBIEWSKI; 

SALLY GUZIK; SEAN HEFFRON; KIRK JONES; COLLEEN JONES; 

STANLEY KAPISH; RAY LAUER, t/a Starry Night Realty; 

ANGELO CONSTANZO, t/a Starry Night Realty; 

JOSEPH LISIEWSKI; KAREY L. LISIEWSKI; MARISSA MARSH; 

MICHAEL MATIKO; CAROL MATIKO; JEFFREY MATIKO; 

JASON MATIKO; GEORGE J. MCNULTY; EDWARD ORKWIS; 

MELINDA ORKWIS; DIANE ORLOWSKI; NANCY PARRICK; 

LOUIS SAPOLIS, JR.; STEPHANIE SHUH; RAYMOND SMITKA; 

TIMOTHY R. TOMLINSON; THOMAS WELBY; ROXANNE WELBY; 

CARLA ROMANCHICK,

Appellants

v.

KEITH MOSS; NICHOLAS A. LOHMAN; LOIS MORREALE; 

AUDREY MARCINKO; FRANK GROBLEWSKI; 

LOWER LACKAWANNA VALLEY SANITORY AUTHORITY; 

DURYEA BOROUGH SEWER AUTHORITY; BOROUGH OF DURYEA

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 3-12-cv-01460)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

________________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on January 16, 2015

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

Case: 14-1459 Document: 003112091383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2015
2

(Opinion filed: October 5, 2015)

________________

OPINION*

________________

ROTH, Circuit Judge

Plaintiffs, thirty-five residents of Duryea, Pennsylvania, appeal the District Court’s 

dismissal of their substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

defendants, the Borough of Duryea, the mayor of Duryea, and various borough officials,

1

for failure to prevent flood damage to plaintiffs’ properties during Hurricane Irene. 

Because plaintiffs failed to allege that their harms stemmed from any affirmative actions 

taken by defendants, or that defendants’ actions “shocked the conscience,” we will

affirm.

I.

On September 8, 2011, Hurricane Irene caused flooding to approximately 200 to 

400 properties in the Borough of Duryea. Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that defendants

“willfully, wantonly and recklessly abandoned their duties to Duryea residents” by 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

1 The defendants are Keith Moss, the Mayor of Duryea; Nicholas A. Lohman, Chief of 

Police; Lois Morreale, Borough Manager; Audrey Marcinko, Borough Council 

Chairperson; Frank Goblewski, Council Member; and Duryea Borough. Plaintiffs also 

brought state tort law claims against the Duryea Borough Sewer Authority and the 

Lackawanna Sanitary Authority, but the District Court declined to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Case: 14-1459 Document: 003112091383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2015
3

ignoring an emergency flood plan and turning away volunteers who offered to help with 

sandbagging. 

Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(c). Noting that the complaint did not indicate what constitutional rights 

were violated, the District Court construed it as alleging a substantive due process 

violation under the “state-created danger” theory. The District Court then held that the 

complaint failed to allege the necessary elements of a state-created danger claim and 

granted defendants’ motion. The District Court denied leave to amend the complaint. 

The District Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to 

Rule 59(e). This appeal followed.

II.2

Our review of a Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss is plenary.3 We “view[ ] the facts 

alleged in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff[s].”4 We review the District Court’s denial of leave to amend 

the complaint and of a motion to alter or amend judgment for abuse of discretion.5

III.

Reading the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we agree with the 

District Court that they have not pled a plausible due process claim under a state-created 

 

2 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we have appellate 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

3 See Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., 709 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2013). 

4 Mele v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 359 F.3d 251, 253 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). 

5 See Cureton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 252 F.3d 267, 272 (3d Cir. 2001).

Case: 14-1459 Document: 003112091383 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2015
4

danger theory. To assert a viable “state-created danger” claim, plaintiffs must allege, 

inter alia, that “state actor[s] affirmatively used [their] authority in a way that created a 

danger to [plaintiffs] or that rendered [plaintiffs] more vulnerable to danger than had the 

state not acted at all[,]” and that “state actor[s] acted with a degree of culpability that 

shocks the conscience[.]”6 Plaintiffs’ failure to meet either element requires dismissal of 

the claim.7 

The meaning of “shocks the conscience” may vary depending on the factual 

context; “[t]he level of culpability required to shock the conscience increases as the time

state actors have to deliberate decreases.”8 Thus, where a state actor has the time to 

deliberate about his actions and is not under pressure to make hurried judgments, his 

conduct will be sufficiently “conscience shocking” if it displays a deliberate indifference

to a serious risk of harm to plaintiffs.

9

 

First, plaintiffs have not pled any facts to establish that defendants, other than 

Mayor Moss, affirmatively acted to place plaintiffs’ properties in increased danger. To 

the contrary, they repeatedly alleged that defendants took no action.10 Plaintiffs alleged 

that despite being informed of the expected high crest of the rivers during the hurricane, 

 

6 Bright v. Westmoreland Cnty., 443 F.3d 276, 281 (3d Cir. 2006).

7 See Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 914 (3d Cir. 1997).

8 Sanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298, 309 (3d Cir. 2006).

9 See id.

10 See J.A. 42, Compl. ¶ 13 (“The Mayor and Council took no action to accept this 

assistance.”); J.A. 42, Compl. ¶ 15 (“The inaction of the individual defendants caused 

property damage and businesses losses to the plaintiffs, individually and jointly.”); J.A. 

43, Compl. ¶ 16 (“The Borough of Duryea through its elected officials named above 

failed to implement and enforce the emergency action plan . . ..”); J.A. 43, Compl. ¶ 18 

(“Plaintiffs’ damages were proximately caused by the inaction of the individual 

defendants . . ..”).

Case: 14-1459 Document: 003112091383 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/05/2015
5

Mayor Moss and Council Members Marcinko and Groblewski ignored an emergency 

action plan which called for sandbagging the areas likely to be flooded, and turned away 

volunteers who offered to help with sandbagging. Plaintiffs also alleged that Duryea 

Borough declined a levee construction grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, despite being aware of the potential for flooding 

since Hurricane Agnes in 1972. These inactions do not constitute affirmative conduct 

that created a danger or exacerbated a danger that plaintiffs otherwise faced.11 “It is

misuse of state authority, rather than a failure to use it, that can violate the Due Process 

Clause.”12 

With respect to Mayor Moss, plaintiffs alleged that he “built a[n incomplete] dirt 

dike that caused flood damage to [three properties.]”13 But the complaint is devoid of 

any facts that support a showing that Mayor Moss or any of the other defendants were 

deliberately indifferent. The most we can infer is that defendants’ inactions and the 

building of the dike amounted to negligence or incompetence. Mere negligence does not 

 

11 See Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 179 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc). Plaintiffs’ brief 

asserts that “[t]he only allegation of affirmative action is that the flood plain in Luzerne 

County was enlarged, heightening the risk of potential flooding of Duryea.” Pls.’ Br. at 

8. But, according to the complaint, it was the Luzerne County Emergency Management 

Agency that enlarged the flood plan [sic].” J.A. 41. Luzerne County EMA is not a 

defendant in this action.

12 Bright, 443 F.3d at 282.

13 J.A. 42. 

Case: 14-1459 Document: 003112091383 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/05/2015
6

shock the conscience.14 Accordingly, plaintiffs have not pled facts to support a 

substantive due process claim, and the District Court properly dismissed it.15

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend 

the complaint on the basis of futility.

16

 Nor did it abuse its discretion in denying 

plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the judgment. The District Court specifically 

addressed plaintiffs’ attempt to add “previously omitted matters of public record.” The 

District Court found that the offered documents only undermined plaintiffs’ claim

because they highlighted defendants’ failure to act, as opposed to affirmative action in 

conscious disregard of a risk. That decision was not erroneous.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

 

14 See Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 426 (3d Cir. 2006); see also United 

Artists Theatre Cir., Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 400 (3d Cir. 2003)

(holding that the “shocks the conscience” standard “encompasses ‘only the most 

egregious official conduct[.]’”) (citation omitted).

15 Municipal liability under § 1983 must be based on the “execution of a government’s 

policy or custom” that actually results in a constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep’t of 

Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Because we conclude that plaintiffs 

have not alleged facts showing a constitutional “violation in the first place, there can be 

no derivative municipal claim.” Mulholland v. Gov’t Cnty. of Berks, Pa., 706 F.3d 227, 

238 n.15 (3d Cir. 2013). 

The District Court also properly dismissed the Stafford Act claim, which addresses 

federal disaster relief and assistance, because the Act does not create a private right of 

action. See 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.; see also Graham v. FEMA, 149 F.3d 997, 1001 (9th 

Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 560 U.S. 413 

(2010); Duffy v. Kent Cnty. Levy Court, Inc., No. CIV. 09-817, 2011 WL 748487, at *5 

(D. Del. Feb. 23, 2011).

16 See Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000).

Case: 14-1459 Document: 003112091383 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/05/2015