1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSAL )

BROTHERHOOD, CONFLUENT )

BRANCH NO. 33478, et al, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) C.A. No. 06-67 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

FARMINGTON TOWNSHIP ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

SUPERVISORS, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I. REPORT

It is respectfully recommended that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Judge

Millin [Document # 19] be granted. 

II. RECOMMENDATION

On March 17, 2006, Plaintiffs, Church of the Universal Brotherhood, Bruce Niles and 

Patricia Niles filed the instant action. Named as one of the Defendants in this action is the

Honorable Paul H. Millin, Senior Judge of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas. 

Although it is not entirely clear, Plaintiffs appear to allege that the Defendants took their

land in an eminent domain proceeding in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas. The

interest in land allegedly taken by Defendants was a right of way for “construction,

reconstruction, renewal, repair, replacement, relocation, renovation and maintenance of sanitary

sewer lines upon” the property. Plaintiffs allege that during this construction, Defendants

damaged the land by placing a sewer line underground across the front of the property and above

the property. Plaintiffs claim that they were not awarded just compensation for the taking of the

Case 1:06-cv-00067-SJM-SPB Document 27 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 3
2

land, that their quiet enjoyment of the land has been disturbed and that they have suffered

emotional distress.

B. The Standard of Review

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

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.

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. The issue is not whether the plaintiff will prevail at the end but whether he

should be entitled to offer evidence in support of his claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319

(1989); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 419 U.S. 232 (1974). Under this “notice pleading,” the complaint

must only set forth sufficient information to suggest that there is some recognized legal theory

upon which relief can be granted. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002). 

C. Judicial Immunity

Defendant Millin moves to dismiss the complaint against him as he is entitled to

absolute immunity.

Case 1:06-cv-00067-SJM-SPB Document 27 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 3
3

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, there is no

allegation by Plaintiffs that challenged actions of Defendant Millin were taken either outside of 

his judicial capacity or were not within his respective jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion to

dismiss should be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

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

Defendant Judge Millin [Document # 19] be granted. Defendant Millin should be dismissed

from this action.

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

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten days from the date of

service to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. 

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: November 21, 2006

Case 1:06-cv-00067-SJM-SPB Document 27 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3