1

 In his original complaint, Plaintiff also named several other individuals as Defendants

including Vivean Tate, Denise Nelson, Mark Causgrove, and Robin Tate. To date, these other

Defendants have not been served.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COREY HARRIS, )

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) C.A.No. 04-369 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION, et al. ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants

Domitrovich and Domestic Relations Section [Document # 40] be granted.

It is further recommended that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his complaint

as to Defendants Domitrovich and Domestic Relations Section.

II REPORT

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff, Corey Harris, currently an inmate at the Erie County Prison, in Erie,

Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action. Plaintiff names Erie County Judge Stephanie

Domitrovich and the Erie County Domestic Relations Section as Defendants1 and alleges that

they have violated his constitutional rights in their assessment and enforcement of Plaintiff’s

child support obligations.

Defendants Domitrovich and Domestic Relations Section are the only defendants who

have been served and they have filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed an Opposition to

Case 1:04-cv-00369-MBC-SPB Document 45 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 5
2

the motion to dismiss and so, the issues as to these two defendants are ripe for disposition by

this Court.

B. Standards of Review

Pro se pleadings, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim

if it appears “<beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief.’” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521(1972), quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state

a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper

legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant’s

unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United

States ex rel. Montgomery v. Bierley, 141 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969)(petition prepared by a

prisoner may be inartfully drawn and should be read “with a measure of tolerance”); Smith v.

U.S. District Court, 956 F.2d 295 (D.C.Cir. 1992); Freeman v. Department of Corrections, 949

F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1991). Under our liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of

litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the

complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997). See, e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d

63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)(discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard); Markowitz v. Northeast Land

Company, 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990)(same). Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this

Court will consider facts and make inferences where it is appropriate. 

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be

viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all the well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint must be accepted as true. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). The motion cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied “that no

relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The issue is not whether the

plaintiff will prevail at the end but only whether he should be entitled to offer evidence to

Case 1:04-cv-00369-MBC-SPB Document 45 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 5
3

support his claim. Neitzke; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 419 U.S. 232 (1974). Rule 8(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure states that a pleading must set forth a claim for relief which contains a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Therefore, in

order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint must set forth

sufficient information to suggest that there is some recognized legal theory upon which relief

can be granted.

C. Judicial Immunity

Judicial officers are immune from damage suits arising out of their official duties. 

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Piskanin v. Hammer, 2005 WL 613644

(E.D.Pa.,2005) (applying judicial immunity to “district justice”). Judicial immunity is an

“immunity from suit, not just from an ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502

U.S. 9, 11 (1991). “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....” Sparkman 435 U.S. at 356. 

Judicial immunity may be overcome only when: (i) the challenged actions were not taken in the

judge’s judicial capacity; or (ii) the challenged actions, “though judicial in nature, were taken in

the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12. In this case, the

challenged actions of Defendant Domitrovich were taken in her judicial capacity and were

within her respective jurisdiction. Thus, Defendant Domitrovich is absolutely immune and her

motion to dismiss should be granted.

D. Sovereign Immunity

In order to establish liability under § 1983, plaintiff must show that: (1) he was deprived

of rights secured by United States Constitution or laws of United States, and (2) he was

subjected or caused to be subjected to constitutional deprivation by person acting under color of

state law. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. 

Plaintiff seeks damages from the Domestic Relations Section of the Erie County Court of

Common Pleas. The Eleventh Amendment proscribes actions in the federal courts against

Case 1:04-cv-00369-MBC-SPB Document 45 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 5
4

states, their agencies, and state officials acting within their official capacities. Laskaris v.

Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23 (3d Cir. 1981)(Pennsylvania); Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v.

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (state agencies); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (state

employees acting in their official capacity). The only ways that a state may be sued in federal

court are if (1) the state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity (Kentucky v. Graham,

473 U.S. 159 (1985)), or (2) Congress has made it unmistakably clear in either the language of a

statute or in its legislative history that it is its intention to permit such suits (Board of Trustees of

the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001)). Thus, unless Erie County Court of

Common Pleas has consented to suit here or the Congress has expressly abrogated this

institution's Eleventh Amendment immunity, neither of which has occurred, this case should be

dismissed against the court. 

Therefore, Defendant Domestic Relations Section should be dismissed from this action.

E. Futility of Amendment

Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend his complaint against Defendants Domitrovich

and Domestic Relations Section as such an amendment would be futile.

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that “leave [to amend] shall be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “In the absence of any apparent or declared

reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing

party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.--the leave sought

should, as the rules require, be freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)

(interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). An amendment would be futile when the

complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In re

NAHC, Inc. Securities Litigation, 306 F.3d 1314, 1332 (3d Cir. 2002).

The amending of the complaint will not overcome immunity (either judicial immunity or

sovereign immunity). By separate Order issued today, Plaintiff will be permitted to file an

amended complaint as to all other Defendants. 

Case 1:04-cv-00369-MBC-SPB Document 45 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 5
5

III CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that that the motion to dismiss

filed by Defendants Domitrovich and Domestic Relations Section [Document # 40] be granted.

It is further recommended that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his complaint

as to Defendants Domitrovich and Domestic Relations Section.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to timely file objections may constitute

a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: November 15, 2005

Case 1:04-cv-00369-MBC-SPB Document 45 Filed 11/16/05 Page 5 of 5