Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/230353670/Hunters-United-v-PA-Game-Commn
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 12:49:08
Document Index: 182698113

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2303', '§ 2303', '§ 2303', '§ 2928', '§ 1', '§\n1367']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HUNTERS UNITED FOR :
SUNDAY HUNTING, et al., :
Plaintiffs : No. 1:13-cv-01939
v. : (Judge Kane)
PENNSYLVANIA GAME :
COMMISSION, et al., :
Defendants : MEMORANDUM
Defendants, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pennsylvania Game Commission
Executive Director Carl Roe, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, move the
Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Kathy Davis and Hunters United for Sunday Hunting’s amended
complaint. (Doc. No. 10.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion.
This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 2303(a) of the Pennsylvania Game and
Wildlife Code, which makes it “unlawful for any person to hunt for any furbearer or game on
Sunday.” 34 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2303(a). Plaintiffs challenge the restriction as unconstitutional
under the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well
as under state law, and seek an order permanently enjoining Defendant Pennsylvania Game and
Wildlife Commission from enforcing Section 2303(a). (Doc. No. 8 at 14.)
As set forth in their complaint, Plaintiffs are currently permitted to hunt furbearer, big
game, and small game on public and private lands within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The following background is taken from the allegations of Plaintiffs’ amended
complaint. (Doc. No. 8.)
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 16
during established seasonal periods, with the exception of Sundays. (Id. ¶ 20.) Big game
consists of white-tailed deer, black bear, elk and wild turkey, whereas small game consists of
woodcock, rabbit, pheasant, northern bobwhite, quail, ruffled grouse, groundhog, and squirrel. (Id. n.1-2.) However, by statute, foxes, coyotes, crows, and feral hog are excepted from the
Sunday hunting restriction, meaning that these animals may be taken on Sunday.
(Id. ¶ 21
(citing 34 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2303(b)(1)-(2).) Non-commercial hunting grounds
are also excepted
from the Sunday hunting restriction, meaning that furbearer and game may be taken on non-
commercial hunting grounds on Sunday. (Id. ¶ 22 (citing 34 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2303(b)(3).) Apart
from these exceptions, however, Section 2303(a) prohibits Plaintiffs from taking furbearer and
game on Sundays. If an individual violates Section 2303(a), he or she potentially faces
prosecution of a summary offense of the fifth degree, and, adverse administrative action against
his or her hunting license. (Id. ¶ 26.)
On J uly 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court, seeking declaratory relief and
a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Pennsylvania Game Commission from enforcing
Section 2303(a). (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Court lacked jurisdiction over
the claims, and, that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. (Doc. No. 5.) Defendants also submitted they were entitled to Eleventh Amendment
Plaintiffs also submit that deer and elk causing damage may be taken by farmers on
their private property on all days, including Sundays, and that feral swine or wild hogs may be
taken on all days, including Sunday. (Doc. No. 8 ¶ 24(a)-(b).) 3
Non-commercial regulated hunting grounds must be used solely by the “permittee only
or guests with no fee or any charge for the use of the area of the birds.” 34 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2928(b)(2). Regulated hunting grounds require a “minimum of 100 acres of land, or land and
water combined.” Id.(a). 2
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 2 of 16
immunity, and that Pennsylvania Attorney General Kane should be dismissed as an improper
party-defendant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which Defendants again
moved to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 8, 10.) The motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to move for dismissal of a
complaint on the grounds that a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. A motion
to dismiss a case for lack of standing is properly brought under Rule 12(b)(1), because standing
is a jurisdictional matter. Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 810 (3d Cir. 2007). When
evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court must first determine whether the movant presents a
facial or factual attack. In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action,
678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). A facial challenge contests the sufficiency
of the pleadings, meaning a court must consider the allegations of the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Gould Elec., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). By contrast, when reviewing a factual attack, a court may consider evidence outside the
pleadings. Id. (citation omitted). Although Defendants do not specify whether their challenge is
facial or factual, their arguments in support of dismissal under Federal Rule 12(b)(1) assume that
Plaintiffs’ allegations are true, and do not reference any evidence outside the pleadings. Thus
the Court will treat Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing as a facial challenge.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the Court must accept as true all material allegations set forth
in the complaint, and must construe those facts in favor of the non-moving party. Ballentine,
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 3 of 16
486 F.3d at 810 (citations omitted). When evaluating whether a complaint adequately pleads the
elements of standing, a court applies the same standard of review as on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. In re Schering Plough, 678 F.3d at 243 (citation omitted).
Accordingly, a plaintiff must assert facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader
has the rights he claims (here, the right to jurisdiction), rather than facts that are merely
consistent with such a right. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). At the
pleadings stage, it is the plaintiffs’ burden to establish standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Although general factual allegations of injury resulting from the
defendant’s conduct may suffice, the complaint must still clearly and specifically set forth facts
sufficient to satisfy Article III’s standing requirement. Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38, 41
(3d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide the defendant notice of
the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232
(3d Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must present facts that, if true, demonstrate a plausible right to
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “only a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” a complaint
may nevertheless be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for its “failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
See Baldwin v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 636 F.3d 69, 73 (3d Cir. 2011) (“A
dismissal for lack of statutory standing is effectively the same as a dismissal for failure to state a
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 4 of 16
When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all
factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom,
and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust
Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). The Court’s inquiry is guided by recent developments
in pleading standards, which commenced with the United States Supreme Court’s announcement
of the “plausibility” standard in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly. 550 U.S. at 557; see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Under Twombly and Iqbal, pleading requirements have
shifted from simple notice pleading under Conley’s “no set of facts” standard to a “more
heightened form of pleading.” See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.
2009). Now, to prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must set out “sufficient factual matter” to
show that the claim is facially plausible. Id. Accordingly, to determine the sufficiency of a
complaint under Twombly and Iqbal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
has identified the following steps a district court must take when determining the sufficiency of a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6): (1) identify the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim,
(2) identify any conclusory allegations contained in the complaint “not entitled” to the
assumption of truth, and (3) determine whether any “well-pleaded factual allegations” contained
in the complaint “plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.” See Santiago v. Warminster
Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Defendants move the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
because Plaintiffs do not have standing; and, that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to state a
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 5 of 16
claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) Defendants further argue that were Plaintiffs to
prevail on any of their claims, Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and
that Defendant Pennsylvania Attorney General Kane should be dismissed as an improper party-
defendant. The Court begins with Count One of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which pertains
to Plaintiffs’ purported Second Amendment right to hunt.
A. Count One: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Plaintiffs allege that Section 2303(a)’s restriction on Sunday hunting violates their rights
under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Doc. No. 8 ¶ 43.) Defendants
move to dismiss this claim on the grounds that Plaintiffs do not have a “legally protected right to
hunt,” and therefore Plaintiffs cannot allege they have suffered an invasion of a legally-protected
interest sufficient to confer standing. (Doc. No. 11 at 10.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that no legal
precedent establishes a constitutional right to hunt, but argue that the Supreme Court’s recent
decisions in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago represent
persuasive authority that the Second Amendment has been extended to embrace the right to hunt. It is on this basis that Plaintiffs maintain Count One articulates injury to a legally-protected
interest. (Doc. No. 14 at 9.) The Second Amendment provides: “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
U.S. Const. amend. II. When reviewing laws alleged to burden conduct protected by the Second
Amendment, a court must undertake a two-step analysis. See United States v. Marzzarella, 614
F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir. 2010). First, a court must ask whether “the challenged law imposes a
burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.” Id. (noting
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 6 of 16
that the right protected by the Second Amendment is subject to “several other valid limitations,”
such as “longstanding prohibitions” imposed on possession by felons and the mentally ill, as
well as restrictions forbidding the carrying of arms in sensitive places). If the challenged law
does not reach protected activity, a court’s inquiry is complete. Id. at 90. If the challenged law
restricts protected activity, a court must evaluate the law under some form of means-based
scrutiny. Id. Although the Court acknowledges that “much of the scope of the right remains
unsettled,” see Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 92, nothing in McDonald or Heller supports Plaintiffs’
expansive view of controlling caselaw related to the Second Amendment.
In both McDonald
and Heller, the Supreme Court underscored that the “core” of the Second Amendment is the right
of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” See Heller v.
Dist. of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008); see also Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 430 (3d Cir.
2013) (“It remains unsettled whether the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-
defense extends beyond the home.”); Kachalsky v. Cnty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d
Cir. 2012) (“Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home.”). The Supreme
Court held that individual self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment
right in Heller, and their historical review of the Second Amendment in McDonald v. City of
Chicago framed the right as tied to self-defense.
130 S.Ct. 3020, 3036 (2010) (citation omitted).
In a recent challenge to New J ersey’s Handgun Permit law, the Third Circuit
“decline[d] to definitively declare that the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-
defense extends beyond the home . . . . [w]e do, however, recognize that the Second
Amendment’s right to bear arms may have some application beyond the home, . . . . [but] we
refrain from answering this question definitively.” Drake, 724 F.3d at 431.
McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (noting that the 1689 English Bill of rights “explicitly
protected a right to keep arms for self-defense”); id. at 3038 (concluding that although “the fear
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 7 of 16
By contrast, “[t]he recreational sport of hunting has not been recognized as a
constitutionally protected liberty or property interest by state or federal law.”
Pa. Game
Comm’n v. Marich, 666 A.2d 253, 256 (Pa. 1995). Although Plaintiffs cite J ustice Scalia’s
observation in Heller that “[t]he prefatory clause [of the Second Amendment] does not suggest
that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most
undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting,” Heller, 554 U.S. at
599, this oblique reference to hunting does not create a nexus between the Second Amendment
and a right to recreational hunting. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ use of this language ignores the context of
the Supreme Court’s opinion, which actually ties the codification of the Second Amendment to
the populace’s fear that the federal government would destroy the citizen’s militia by taking
away their arms, not that the federal government would regulate recreational hunting.
that the National Government would disarm the universal militia [...] had largely faded as a
popular concern, [] the right to keep and bear arms was highly valued for purposes of self-
defense”); id. at 3041 (“[O]ne of the core purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of the
Fourteenth Amendment was to redress the grievances of freedman who had been stripped of
their arms and to affirm the full and equal right of every citizen to self-defense.”) (citation and
quotation marks omitted); id. at 3041 (“Even those who thought the Fourteenth Amendment
unnecessary believed that blacks, as citizens, have an equal right to protection, and to keep and
bear arms for self-defense.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Baldwin v. Fish & Game
Commission of Montana, in which the Supreme Court concluded that elk-hunting was not a
fundamental right in the context of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. 436 U.S. 371, 388
(1978); see also Minnesota ex rel. Hatch v. Hoeven, 456 F.3d 826, 834 (8th Cir. 2006)
(“Equality in access to North Dakota waterfowl does not constitute a fundamental right basic to
the maintenance or well-being of the Union.”).
Heller, 554 U.S. at 599 (“But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy
the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right – unlike some other
English rights – was codified in a written Constitution.”).
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 8 of 16
Because the Court can find no legal support for Plaintiffs’ argument that Second
Amendment protections extend to recreational hunting, the Court declines to find that Section
2303(a) restricts conduct protected by the Second Amendment and need not proceed to evaluate
it under any means-based test. See Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 90. Moreover, as Plaintiffs’
complaint fails to allege injury-in-fact to any “legally protected interest,” the Court finds that
Plaintiffs lack standing, and will dismiss Count One for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 273 (2008) (requiring a “concrete and
particularized” invasion of a “legally protected interest” to confer standing). The Court proceeds
to Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim.
B. Count Three: Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution
In Count Three of their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Title 34 of the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes and the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s regulations
violate their right to equal treatment under the law, as Plaintiffs are “treated differently by Title
34 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes than other Pennsylvania citizens who are similarly
situated,” and “Title 34 . . . create[s] different classes of hunters; one class who are not permitted
to hunt furbearer, big game and/or small game on Sunday and other classes that permit furbearer,
big game and/or small game to be taken on Sundays.” (Doc. No. 8 ¶¶ 55-56.) Defendants argue
in their reply brief that the Court should dismiss Count Three because under the “minimal level
Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim, it will not proceed to
Defendants’ argument that Count One fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
nor to Defendants’ argument they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Moreover,
because the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to amend their Second Amendment allegations in
Count One would be futile, the Court will deny Plaintiffs leave to amend. See Phillips, 515 F.3d
at 236 (citation omitted) (“[A] district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an
amendment would be inequitable or futile.”). 9
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 9 of 16
of scrutiny” that the Court must apply to Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Claim, “it is not difficult to
accept that the General Assembly could have entirely rational reasons related to the management
of game or conservation which support a distinction.” (Doc. No. 15 at 6.)
Constitution prohibits a State from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. “Its central tenet requires that States treat
like cases alike but may treat unlike cases differently.” Brian B. ex rel. Lois B. v. Com. of Pa.
Dep’t of Educ., 230 F.3d 582, 588 (3d Cir. 2000) (Roth, J ., dissenting). When reviewing a claim
that government action violates the Equal Protection Clause, the Court must first determine the
correct standard of review. Donatelli v. Mitchell, 2 F.3d 508, 513 (3d Cir. 1993). In areas of
social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines
nor infringes fundamental rights “must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is
any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” FCC v. Beach Comm’n, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). This is referred to as rational basis
review. Classifications that neither burden fundamental rights nor utilize suspect classes bear a
strong presumption of validity, and those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification
“have the burden to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.” Id. at 315
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Under rational basis review, equal protection does not
demand that a legislature or governing decisionmaker “actually articulate at any time the purpose
or rationale supporting its classification.” Id. Rather, a “legislative choice is not subject to
courtroom fact-finding,” and “may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or
empirical data.” Id. 10
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 10 of 16
Because Section 2303(a) neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental
rights, the Court must apply rational basis review. District courts in the Third Circuit have
recognized “the perplexing situation” that occurs when a district court must apply rational basis
review to a plaintiff’s complaint when faced with a defendant’s motion to dismiss. Brace v.
Cnty. of Luzerne, 873 F. Supp. 2d 616, 630 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (citation and quotation marks
omitted); Cradle of Liberty Council, Inc. v. City of Phila., No. 08-2429, 2008 WL 4399025, at
*6 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2008). On the one hand, a court is considering a motion to dismiss,
meaning that all inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant, and dismissal is only
appropriate if the plaintiff’s complaint fails to provide factual allegations sufficient to raise the
complaint beyond the speculative level. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231. On the other hand, a
court must defer to the government’s classification.
Thus, “every benefit of the doubt goes to
Plaintiff, but applying rational basis review, the Court must grant great deference to Defendant.” Brace, 873 F. Supp. 2d at 630 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
“[T]o determine whether
a rational basis exists at the motion to dismiss stage, a court may consider the defendant’s
motion, the plaintiff’s complaint, and any other admissible documents.” Id. at 630-31 (citation
omitted); see also Cradle, 2008 WL 4399025 at *7 n.3.
See Wroblewski v. City of Washburn, 965 F.2d 452, 460 (7th Cir. 1992) (“To survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to overcome
the presumption of rationality that applies to government classifications.”).
Put differently, although “[t]he rational basis standard . . . cannot defeat the plaintiff’s
benefit of the broad Rule 12(b)(6) standard,” see Montayne Wissahickon Sch. Dist., 327 F. Supp.
2d 510, 520 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (citation omitted), meaning the Court must take as true all of the
complaint’s allegations and reasonable inferences that follow, the Court must likewise “apply the
resulting ‘facts’ in light of the deferential rational basis standard.” Wroblewski, 965 F.2d 452,
460 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Giarratano v. J ohnson, 521 F.3d 298, 303 (4th Cir. 2008); C.M. ex
rel. Marshall v. Bentley, No. 13-591, 2014 WL 1378432 at *22 n.22. (M.D. Ala. Apr. 8, 2014). 11
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 11 of 16
Plaintiffs allege that Section 2303(a) creates multiple classes of hunters because
exceptions to the general Sunday hunting prohibition permit individuals to take “crow, foxes,
coyotes, furbearer and feral hog” on Sundays, as well as furbearer and game on noncommercial
regulated hunting grounds. (Doc. No. 8 ¶¶ 21-22; ¶ 24.) Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true,
the Court accepts Plaintiffs’ argument that Section 2303(a), and its exceptions, create “different
classes of hunters.” (Id. ¶¶ 57-58.) Nevertheless, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to state an equal protection claim. Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that “[t]here is no longer a rational basis for the difference in
treatment between the various classes” cannot overcome the presumption of rationality the Court
must accord to Section 2303(a), and, the readily apparent justifications for the statute advanced
by Defendants in their reply brief. Nor do Plaintiffs offer any competing factual allegations that
would discredit Defendants’ assertion that the “state legislature rationally could believe that, for
reasons related to conservation or game management, certain wildlife may be hunted seven days
a week and others should not” (Doc. No. 15 at 6-7); and, that “[t]he General Assembly
reasonably could believe that more weekend hunting days would result in a greater harvest of
certain wildlife for the simple reason that more hunters would be afield on two-day weekends.” (Id. at 7.) Balancing these straight-forward justifications against Plaintiffs’ conclusory
allegation that Section 2303(a) is without rational basis, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to
state an equal protection claim and will dismiss Count Three with prejudice.
C. Count Five: First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Plaintiffs allege in Count Five that Section 2303(a) violates the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution because it has a religious basis. (Doc. No. 8 ¶ 81.) Plaintiffs do not
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 12 of 16
specify whether their claim falls under the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause, nor do
they offer any arguments in support of their alleged injury-in-fact. Defendants do not address
Plaintiffs’ claim under the First Amendment in their brief. The Court cannot divine Plaintiffs’
injury-in-fact from their allegation that “Defendants [sic] enforcement and prohibition on Sunday
hunting no longer has a secular basis but instead a religious basis.” (Doc. No. 8 ¶ 80.) Plaintiffs’ allegation that Section 2303(a) has a “religious basis” is a legal conclusion that the
Court is not obliged to consider when evaluating whether Plaintiffs sufficiently allege an injury-
in-fact. See Gould, 220 F.3d at 176. Plaintiffs’ complaint does not contain any factual
allegations concerning the ways in which the ban on hunting violates their religious beliefs or
coerces them to participate in any state religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Court
therefore finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their First Amendment claim.
Moreover, even were Plaintiffs to offer any well-pleaded factual allegations that would
support a finding they have standing to assert a First Amendment claim, the Court would
nevertheless find that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs allege that “the secular reasons for Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
and the Commission are no longer applicable,” and that Section 2303(a) has a “religious basis.” (Doc. No. 8 ¶¶ 79-80.) In their brief, Plaintiffs argue that “the restriction against Sunday hunting
is a Blue Law, enacted for secular [sic] reasons, which is without rational and substantial relation
to the intent of the legislation in modern times.” (Doc. No. 14 at 11.) Although Plaintiffs allege
“House Resolution 535 declared 2012 as the ‘Year of the Bible’ in Pennsylvania,” Plaintiffs do
not connect this factual allegation in any way to their claim that Section 2303(a) has a “religious
basis” and violates the First Amendment. See Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902,
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 13 of 16
906 n.8 (3d Cir. 1997) (“[C]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”) (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs take the position that Section 2303(a) effectively
forces them to observe predominant Christian religions by forbidding hunting on Sundays, the
Supreme Court rejected a similar argument more than fifty years ago. In McGowan v.
Maryland, the Supreme Court upheld a Sunday closing law prohibiting the sale of certain
merchandise passed by the Maryland legislature, finding that “[t]o say that the States cannot
proscribe Sunday as a day of rest . . . solely because centuries ago such laws had their genesis in
religion would give a constitutional interpretation of hostility to the public welfare rather than
one of mere separation of church and State.” 366 U.S. 420, 445 (1961); see also Lynch v.
Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 710 (1984) (noting the “wholly secular goals – for instance, promoting
goodwill and a common day of rest – that were found to justify Sunday Closing laws in
McGowan”). Although Plaintiffs concede in Count Five that McGowan permits Sunday closure
laws, Plaintiffs nonetheless allege that “[i]t is Petitioner’s assertion that the Defendants [sic]
enforcement and prohibition on Sunday hunting no longer has a secular basis but instead a
religious basis.” (Doc. No. 8 ¶ 79.) Because Plaintiffs do not supply any factual allegations
supporting this assertion, the Court need not credit it. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351
(3d Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’
First Amendment claim in Count Five against all Defendants.
D. Counts Two, Four, Five and Six: Plaintiffs’ state law claims
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges parallel claims under state law; namely, Section 2303(a)
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 14 of 16
violates their right to hunt under Article 1, Section 1 and Article 1, Section 21 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution (Doc. No. 8 ¶ 52) (Count Two); their right to equal protection under
Article 1, Section 1 and Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (id. ¶ 69) (Count
Four); their right to religious freedom under Article III, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution (id. ¶ 81) (Count Five); and, it violates the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom
Protection Act (id. ¶ 91) (Count Six). As discussed previously, the Court will dismiss all federal claims against all Defendants.
A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over accompanying state law
claims when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). When determining whether to exercise its discretion to hear any remaining state law
claims, a court must take into account generally accepted principles of judicial economy,
convenience, and fairness to the litigants. Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware Cnty., Pa., 983
F.2d 1277, 1284 (3d Cir. 1993); see Rossi v. Gemma, 489 F.3d 26, 39 (1st Cir. 2007) (“As a
general principle, the unfavorable disposition of a plaintiff’s federal claims at the early stages of
a suit . . . will trigger the dismissal without prejudice of any supplemental state-law claims.”)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Because of the early stage of this action, the Court finds
that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants weigh in favor of
declining to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See Shaffer v. Bd. of Sch.
Directors of Albert Gallatin Area Sch. Dist., 730 F.2d 910, 912 (3d Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the
Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ accompanying state law claims in
Counts Two, Four, Five, and Six, and dismiss them without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to raise
them in state court. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1986).
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 15 of 16
The Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims with prejudice, and dismiss Plaintiffs’
state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to raise them in state court. An order
consistent with this memorandum follows.
Case 1:13-cv-01939-YK Document 16 Filed 06/18/14 Page 16 of 16
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulHunters United v PA Game Commn by Howard Friedman0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOpinion upholding PA Sunday hunting ban.Opinion upholding PA Sunday hunting ban.Interests: Books, Politics & Economy, PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedMINOR v. MORMONS - Document No. 4by Justia.com2014-02-14 DBCS Reply to Plaintiff's Response to MTDby AaronWorthingMahogany v. Miller et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comFrank J. Marcedes, Jr. v. Thomas E. Barrett, Clerk of Courts, 453 F.2d 391, 3rd Cir. (1971)by Scribd Government DocsLott-Johnson v. Goreau, Devillier - Copyright Statute of Limitationsby Mark H. JaffeKayaian v. Fresno County - Document No. 4by Justia.comKagan Steedman Mcelroy George Combined Pacerby DoTheMacaRenoWilliam H. Brezovski v. United States Postal Service Postmaster General of the United States, Anthony Frank, Officially Postmaster of Albuquerque, Rodney Smith, Officially, 905 F.2d 334, 10th Cir. (1990)by Scribd Government DocsBeauchamp v. Arkansas, State of et al - Document No. 5by Justia.comDarab Sample Complaintby Cecille Garces-SongcuanJavier v Reyesby asnia07Shawn Dixon St Francisby The Daily HazeMiner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkinsby "Buzz" AguirreXiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al - Document No. 42by Justia.comXiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al - Document No. 50by Justia.comXiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al - Document No. 36by Justia.comLlm v10 Final 2 Reconsideration of Order Jan 31, 2014 Feb 9, 2014by Virginia LawBoyce v. Arpaio et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comMILLS v. MURPHY - Document No. 2by Justia.comcanon 17-20.docxby cydlingsRoehm v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated - Document No. 23by Justia.com3:13-cv-02351 #37by Equality Case FilesLorraine Grace, Individually and as of the Estate of Oliver R. Grace, Gerald I. White, as of the Estate of Morgan H. Grace, and Gerald I. White, Trustee of the John E. Grace Trust, Individually, and as Stockholders of Briggs Leasing Corporation, Suing on Behalf of Themselves and for the Benefit of Said Corporation and for the Class of All Other Stockholders of Said Corporation Similarly Situated v. Robert Rosenstock, Edward Rosenstock, Briggs Leasing Corporation and Briggs Acquisition Corporation, Robert Genser, Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York, David MacK Leo v. Berger, Apex Marine Corporation and Gary Holman, Proposed, 228 F.3d 40, 2d Cir. (2000)by Scribd Government DocsLegal Ethics Case Digestby Man HernandoConsumer Complaints Resolutionby lambajosepgApple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. - Document No. 58by Justia.comSieverding et al v. Murphy Desmond LLC - Document No. 2by Justia.comCanon 15 Full Casesby Dondi MenesesSimilar To Hunters United v PA Game CommnSkip carouselMINOR v. MORMONS - Document No. 42014-02-14 DBCS Reply to Plaintiff's Response to MTDMahogany v. Miller et al - Document No. 4Frank J. Marcedes, Jr. v. Thomas E. Barrett, Clerk of Courts, 453 F.2d 391, 3rd Cir. (1971)Lott-Johnson v. Goreau, Devillier - Copyright Statute of LimitationsKayaian v. Fresno County - Document No. 4Kagan Steedman Mcelroy George Combined PacerWilliam H. Brezovski v. United States Postal Service Postmaster General of the United States, Anthony Frank, Officially Postmaster of Albuquerque, Rodney Smith, Officially, 905 F.2d 334, 10th Cir. (1990)Beauchamp v. Arkansas, State of et al - Document No. 5Darab Sample ComplaintJavier v ReyesShawn Dixon St FrancisMiner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James HarkinsXiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al - Document No. 42Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al - Document No. 50Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al - Document No. 36Llm v10 Final 2 Reconsideration of Order Jan 31, 2014 Feb 9, 2014Boyce v. Arpaio et al - Document No. 3MILLS v. MURPHY - Document No. 2canon 17-20.docxRoehm v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated - Document No. 233:13-cv-02351 #37Lorraine Grace, Individually and as of the Estate of Oliver R. Grace, Gerald I. White, as of the Estate of Morgan H. Grace, and Gerald I. White, Trustee of the John E. Grace Trust, Individually, and as Stockholders of Briggs Leasing Corporation, Suing on Behalf of Themselves and for the Benefit of Said Corporation and for the Class of All Other Stockholders of Said Corporation Similarly Situated v. Robert Rosenstock, Edward Rosenstock, Briggs Leasing Corporation and Briggs Acquisition Corporation, Robert Genser, Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York, David MacK Leo v. Berger, Apex Marine Corporation and Gary Holman, Proposed, 228 F.3d 40, 2d Cir. (2000)Legal Ethics Case DigestConsumer Complaints ResolutionApple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. - Document No. 58Sieverding et al v. Murphy Desmond LLC - Document No. 2Canon 15 Full CasesIn RePaglinawan v. Frey - Document No. 18Hunters United v PA Game Commn