1 See Hill v. Nassberg, No. 4:04-CV-2444, slip op. at 2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2004),

aff’d, 130 Fed. Appx. 615 (3d Cir. May 12, 2005) (per curiam).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY D. HILL, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:05-CV-1336

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

RICHARD NASSBERG, et al., :

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

For the second time, Jeffrey D. Hill has commenced an action in this court

challenging property reassessments conducted by officials and agents of the Board

of Commissioners of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, that purportedly resulted in

a disproportionate tax burden on low-income residents. The previous action was

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because neither the complaint nor the amended

complaint, filed after the court identified the deficiencies in the original pleading,

suggested that Mr. Hill owned taxable property or otherwise suffered an “injury-infact” from the reassessments.1

 The latest complaint substantially mirrors his prior

submissions but includes the assertion that “[m]y rent has increased as a direct

result of the . . . property reassessment[—]my rent helps to pay the property

Case 4:05-cv-01336-CCC Document 7 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 5
2

 The court will grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

exercise the screening mechanism of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

2

taxes[—]so I have less money for other necessities.” Unfortunately for Mr. Hill, this

allegation does not render his claims justiciable in this forum.2 

 Federal courts may constitutionally exercise jurisdiction only over claims

predicated on an injury redressable by favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-63 (1992) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734

(1972)). Implicit in this standard is the requirement that a causal link exist between

the injury asserted and the relief requested, such that a favorable judgment will

address or relieve the injury. See id.; see also Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,

426 U.S. 26, 42-44 (1976). This link is not present in this case, despite Mr. Hill’s

status as a lessee of property subject to reassessment. A judicial declaration that

the reassessments are invalid, or an order enjoining collection of taxes based on

those assessments, would not of itself cause Mr. Hill’s rent to be lowered. A

landlord has broad discretion, unbounded by property tax rates, to raise or lower

rental prices as he or she sees fit. There is no reason to suspect that Mr. Hill’s lessor

would be inclined to lower the rental rate of the property occupied by Mr. Hill,

even if the latter secured the relief requested in the complaint. See id. Mr. Hill has

not alleged a redressable injury; as such, he lacks standing to proceed. 

Moreover, notwithstanding these concerns over justiciability, it is clear that

Mr. Hill’s claims lack merit. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against

prospective collections of property taxes. Such relief is patently barred by the

Case 4:05-cv-01336-CCC Document 7 Filed 08/01/05 Page 2 of 5
3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (“The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend, or

restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax where a plain, speedy and

efficient remedy may be had in the court of such State.”); Behe v. Chester County

Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 952 F.2d 66, 68-71 (3d Cir. 1991) (finding that

Pennsylvania offers adequate remedy to challenge property assessments and that

related federal claims are barred); Sunderland Props., Inc. v. County of Berks, 750

F. Supp. 704, 710 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (same); see also In re Bd. of Prop. Assessment, 797

A.2d 414, 416-18 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002) (noting that lessees may challenge property

assessments); cf. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Bd. of Assessment & Revision

of Taxes, 266 A.2d 78, 79 (Pa. 1970) (stating that parties may raise federal

constitutional challenges to tax assessment in Pennsylvania state courts); Consol.

Gas Supply Corp. v. Clinton County, 470 A.2d 1113, 1114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984)

(same).

3

Federal Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341.3 The remainder of the complaint

includes a variety of vague accusations against the officials of Lycoming County,

who are described in a rambling narrative as generally “rude” and “corrupt.” 

These allegations do not state a claim for a violation of Mr. Hill’s rights under the

Constitution or federal law, see, e.g., Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 385 F.3d

274, 285-87 (3d Cir. 2004), or otherwise demonstrate that he has suffered a

compensable injury. His claims must be dismissed.

One other point bears note. The complaint in the above-captioned case was

filed shortly after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had

affirmed this court’s dismissal of Mr. Hill’s previous action. See Hill v. Nassberg,

130 Fed. Appx. 615 (3d Cir. May 12, 2005) (per curiam). Mr. Hill had the opportunity

in that action to amend his complaint and to present additional allegations

bolstering his claims. He declined to do so, but instead commenced another,

independent action—proceeding once again in forma pauperis—based on the same

Case 4:05-cv-01336-CCC Document 7 Filed 08/01/05 Page 3 of 5
allegations. This behavior may appropriately be described as frivolous and

vexatious. See, e.g., Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083-91 (3d Cir. 1995). 

The court will dismiss the complaint sub judice without granting leave to amend. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.

2002). 

An appropriate order will issue.

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Dated: August 1, 2005

Case 4:05-cv-01336-CCC Document 7 Filed 08/01/05 Page 4 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY D. HILL, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:05-CV-1336

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

RICHARD NASSBERG, et al., :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2005, upon consideration of plaintiff’s

complaint (Doc. 1) and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), and

for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED

that:

1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is

GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

2. The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and

as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

3. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile and frivolous. See Grayson v.

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.

5. Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01336-CCC Document 7 Filed 08/01/05 Page 5 of 5