2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-26-2014

Corey Harris v. Mark Causgrove

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1622

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Corey Harris v. Mark Causgrove" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 885.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/885
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1622

___________

COREY L. HARRIS,

Appellant

v.

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; 

GARY D. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Pennsylvania 

Department of Public Welfare; ERIC ROLLINS, in his official capacity as Executive 

Director of the Erie County Assistance Office; MARK CAUSGROVE, in his official 

capacity as Child Support Director of Domestic Relation Section Enforcement for Erie 

Pennsylvania; BARRY GROSSMAN, in his official capacity as Erie County Executive 

of Government Agency of Erie County Pennsylvania; LARIE ZACK, in his official 

capacity as Erie County Court of Common Pleas Collections Bureau Officer a Division 

of Adult Probation/Parole of Erie County Pennsylvania; DANIEL N. RICHARD

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-12-cv-00001)

District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti 

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 22, 2014

Before: JORDAN, COWEN and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 26, 2014 )

___________

OPINION
2

___________

PER CURIAM

Corey L. Harris appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his 

complaint with prejudice. We will affirm.

I.

In 2012, Harris filed a complaint in the District Court alleging violations of his 

civil rights in relation to a child support order. The named defendants were all officials 

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, and 

Erie County. The District Court determined that Harris’s claims were barred variously by 

the 11th Amendment, the statute of limitations, collateral estoppel, the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, and the defendants’ lack of personal involvement. Nevertheless, the District 

Court dismissed Harris’s complaint without prejudice to his ability to file an amended 

complaint against the three defendants who had been named in their individual capacity, 

specifically Mark Causgrove, Larie Zack, and Barry Grossman. 

When Harris filed an amended complaint, he named three entirely new defendants 

in their official capacities, although in the body of the amended complaint he again

named the defendants from the original complaint. He roughly alleged that : (1) he was 

denied payment for his ownership interest in several programs of the Erie Metropolitan 

Transit Authority between 1999 and 2011; (2) his court-ordered child support obligations 

for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011 were excessive; (3) he was illegally incarcerated in 
3

October 2011 for civil contempt for failing to pay his court-ordered child support; and (4) 

he was denied the assistance of court appointed counsel at his contempt proceeding. On 

the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the District Court determined that Harris had failed to 

allege the personal involvement of any of the defendants and, for that and other reasons,

dismissed his complaint with prejudice. Harris timely appeals. 

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal of Harris’s second amended complaint. See Tourscher 

v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). To survive a motion to dismiss, a 

plaintiff must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In conducting our review, we liberally construe 

Harris’s pro se filings. See Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).

A plaintiff in a civil rights suit must allege the personal involvement of individual 

government defendants, which includes stating the conduct, time, place, and persons 

responsible. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005). Here, Harris alleged 

various civil rights violations, but he did not state that the defendants had any personal 

involvement in the conduct underlying his claims. Accordingly, the District Court 

properly dismissed Harris’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Moreover, as 

the District Court had already permitted Harris to amend his complaint and had provided 

him with guidance on complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), it 
4

appropriately determined that further amendment would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 

363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). To the extent that Harris is appealing the order 

dismissing his original complaint, we agree with the District Court’s reasoning and can 

find no basis for overruling it. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellant’s

outstanding motions are denied.