Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-00364 ;." ,J' I '" I' . " " I, " , ' 1;.1 I , " ,I " r, I ." , , v. IN THS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 95-364 CIVIL TERM KIMBERLY M. FURMAN plaint i H RICHARD K. BETTS, and DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION OF CUMBERLAHD COUNTY, PENNSYLVAHIA, Defendants DJ'INDANT8' AN8W1R WITH HIM MATTIR 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, t~e same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It ia admitted only that Richard K. Betts as Director of the Domestic Relations Section of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is located at 13 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that the Domestio Relations Section of Cumberland County, PA, in a local/county agency of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Anawering Defendants are without information sufficient to torm a belief aa to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, the aame are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. , " 5. Admitted in put I denied in part. It is admitted that Richard K. Betts wrote a letter to Mary Ann Seitz at the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement, dated July 7, 1993. The remaining allegationa of this paragraph are denied, in that the letter attached thereto as Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. 6. Denied. The letter attached thereto as Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, the Bame are denied and strict proof thereof i8 demanded at trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inqUiry, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, to the extent that this paragraph sets forth legal conclusions exclusive of factual allegationa, then these allegationo in this paragraph oonstitute conclusions of law to which no response of pleadings is required, accordingly the same are denied and strict proof thereof i8 demanded at trial. 9. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading i. I I ,I -2- /1 , ., rllqulred, I.lcoordingly, thlll same are denied and strict proof thereof iM demanded at trial. 10. Deniod. The allegations in this paragraph oonstitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thoreof ia demanded at trial. By way of further answer, to the extent that this paragraph seta forth factual allegations exclusive of legal conclusions, then Answering Defendants upon rftlu.onable investi.gation and inquiry al'e without information auffioimnt to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and acoordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. The allegat ions in this paragraph oonstitutQ conolusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, accordingly, the Bame are denied and str~ct proof thel'llIof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, to the extent that this paragraph sets forth factual allegations exolusive of legal conclusions, then Answering Defendants upon reasonable investigation and inquiry are without information suffioient to form a belief as to the truth of theae allegations and accordingly, the same are denied and etrict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Admitted in partl denied in part. It ia admitted only that plaintiff did file a federal lawsuit and that it was dismi8lled by Judge Rambo. It is apecifioally denied that Judge .J. ,'.' .., Rambo "requested the plaintiff to file her state claims in state I 'I oourt, " Judge Rambo's Memorandum and Order, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit "0", speaks for itself, COUNT I - DEFAMATION 13. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference the responses to paragraphs 1 through 12 above as if fully set forth at length herein. 14. Denied. The allegations in thia paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, acoordingly, the uame are denied and strict proof thereof is d.emanded at trial. 15. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. , I I I I' I ! I 16. Denied. The allegationa in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no respollsive pleading is required, accordingly, the eame are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph conetitute conclusions of law to whiah no responsive pleading i. required, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof ia demanded at trial. 18. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph conatitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading i. -4- I I ,; I I , I I I I ! required, accordingly, th~ eame are denied and strict proof thereof is demand~d at trial. 19. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. The allegations in thio paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, accordingly, the eame are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WBIRI'ORI, D~fendanto, Richard K. Bette and Domestic Relation Section of Cumberland cou.nty, Pennsylvania, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with i "I I , I interest, cost and attorney's fees. ~EW MATTER 21., Plaintiff's Complaint faile to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 22. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the applioable statute of limitations. 23. Defendants are immune from liability pursu8~t to the Political Subdivioion Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A, I .llt. JW;l, , I I I 24. The statement a allegedly made and/or published Defendanta concerning Plaintiff are true. -5- 25. The statements allegedly made and/or published by Defendants concerning Plaint iff are inaapable of having a defamatory meaning as a matter of law. 26. No act or omission on the part of Defendants i. and/or was a substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiff's alleged damagea, those damages being expressly denied. WHlalrOll, Defendants, Richard K. Betts and Domestic Relations Section of cumberland County, Pennsylvania, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with interests, costs and attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN AND GOGGIN BY, T!L;j:t:at!:QUI.. I,D. *59918 100 Pine Street - Fourth Floor Harrisburg, PA 17108 (?17l 232-1022 Attorneys for Defendants DAT~1 March ~____, 1995 , , I I , I 1 ' I I ,I " 1 I , ..'6" - V..I.IC~TIO" I, Timothy J, McMahon, attorney for Defendanta veritieD that the taots set forth in the Defendants' Answer with New Matter are true to the best of my knowlfldgfl, information and belief. It the above statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 84904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE I .,) \,)" \1\') Tl~;tt/I!bilr " I' 1'1 , , I 'i I " I _,I' 'I I, 01, ,11,1 , " '" , , , " ",) i' " , I " .' I ,I 'I' I I " " " , , , ., '" " " ',' 'I I, " , 'II, I" " Ii " ,'I, " :, I, I " , , , " , 1.1 ,. " I, " I , " 'i " I , I, 1 ,\" , I I ,. " iI " , I I, ': , , 1'1, " ",1 j' , '" ,r,. If.'; tI .;, 'I \. . Ii ,"; , I', :rr- T I.., , .~, H,., ~. : ' \ I, \'''~:, _iI j ""f..:' """t'f\ 'i~ : i\ ~~. '" " , ' 'f! 'f:'J e".1 f. ;J, ttl " co. . ,,~) v,unCATIQJI The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants' Answer with New Matter, are based upon informat.ion which has buen furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defend~nts' Anower with New Matter is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Defendants' Answer with New Matter and to the extent that the Defendants' Answer with New Matter is based upon information which I have given to counoel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the DefendantB' Answer wit.h New Matter that of counsel, r have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undernigned aloo understando that the statements therein are made oubject to the penalties of 18 , Pa.C,S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorit ies. DATE t March 27, 1996 ~_. 1/& -""'" .,.... " .' /~/ .' P-'f/. ~ -,../ '7--- RICHA~O K. BETTS . TITLE~ Director, Da1lsetic Relations seotion CIRTI'ICATI O~.~~RVIC. On this 31st. day of March, 1995, I, Robin Nelson, an emploYlle of the law firm of Marohall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman' Goggin, do hereby certify that I ser.ved a true and CQrreot oopy of the Defendants' Answer. with New Matter via United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as followsl Robert S. Mirin, Esquire MIRIN & JACOaSON 8150 Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 AT'rORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ~/ Q .. )( fl,~"'t\1 ~tN ~iaON ,~ ',1 , ' , , , " I 1 .1 , , .1 , I :' " I' , , , , ' I ., , , , I \ .' " ,I, " , I 'I, , " ," " " " i' " , , . II L; " , ' , " I" " , , " ;\1 , " , , " " , , " 11 " Iii , I " ," ./ ., J'II , , , I~I )~ ~t) I ,,,'1.;,1 t'l'- f!!:, I. :11 I J _ ~,\ , .....,'. ,,1-) I ';'j ';'11 . . ~ ". r .., I 1 ;. "J~ ;. ',,:: " :' -~ III '..J /, ..oj .~ " -0( , , I' , " , ' j' ",. ,. J:~ FS $! "1'.;1 s::c tA' ,I' SHERlf'f"S RE'llJRN ~'l11 Of' PENNSYLVANIA! CC1JNl'Y Of' ClMBERIJ\NP In 1'hc COUl't of Cannon Pleas of ClJnberl/Jnd County, Penneylvania No. 95-364 civil Term Conplnint in Civil Action LtIW and Notice Kimberly M, f\Jrmnn \IS Riclulrd K, Betts, and lbnestic Relations Bp.ction of CUnberland County, l~nnsylvania Michael Barrick , ~or Oep.aty Sheriff of Cl.Jnberland County, pennsylvania, Who being duly owom according to 111W, say., that he served the within CanpJaint in Civil Action Law and Notice ~ichard K, Betta, and Domestic Relations Upon Section of CUnberlllnd County, PA , The defendant at 11130 o'olock -A_,M. EST I llIIBX, on the 17 day of February , 19.21.. at 13 North Hanover street, Carlisle ,CUmberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to Richard K, Betts, defenoant and adult in cha:rQe a true and attested copy of the Canplaint in Civil Action Law and Noti.ce and at the oame tUno directing his attention to the contenta thereof and the "Notice to PleCK!" endomed thereon, Bheriff'o CostSI [)x:keting Service Affidavit Surcharge 24,00 2.80 So answer.' , "./:' ". ,") , " , ,..,,~'.- '" 1~'" ( ,r7..J.,.,....~<.,.t"........;.~ .' ,'~ ~ I " . 4,00 30,80 1\1, by Atty, 2-23-95 R. Thomas ~line, Sheriff by Swom and subscribed to before me (/.. l' , this .n -. ddY of :MJl... 'U. 7 19 Qof' A.D. ~1u- c2. i1t.i!I.J~ ~,,- Prothonotary -' -' ItIII8IR1~Y H. I'U1UIAJf PlaintUf v. I III '1'81 COURT or COHHOII PL11.A8 I CUHBIRLAND COUll'l'Y, PIJlN8YLVAIIIA I I 110. q~'~ ill.'/ (!,vc:I .,..,,,.~ I I I I I I RICBARD It. BITT8, and 'DOHI8TIC RlLATIOIIS 8IC'1'IOII or CUHBIlWUID COUll'l'Y, .1..8YLVAIIIA D.~.ndanh 1I0000JCB YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IfYQU wlah tQ defend aaainltthe clAlm.l.et fQrth In tl~ fQUowIntJ pllp', YQU mlllt take MUQn within twenty (20) day. Il.l\er thil CQmplalnt Md NQtlc. lII'e .."eel, by enterin8 a written llJlpearlllCe JHIrsQnaII,y Qr by ellQmey IlIld IlIIni In writinl with the CQurt ,yQur defeJlMl Qr Q~eoUQM tQ the clalllll ..t fQrth aaainlt YQu. YQU are warned that It ,yQU fill tQ do 10 the CUt may proceed without ~~::,:d Judiment may be entered ap/net YQU b,y the Court wltMUt IUrther notice fQr al\)' mQney c In the Complaint Qr fQr IIIl,)' Qther claim ur relief l'tC/ueated by t.ht plalntllT. YQU may Illee mQne,y Qr prQperty Qr Qth"r ri8ht.t important tQ ,yQU, YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CQurt AdmIniItratQr 4th Floor, Cumberland CQunty CQurthQ. Carlille, PA 17013 (717) 240.6200 Lt ban del1Wldado a lilted en II CQrte, SI lilted qulere defenderae de e.taI demandae expUlltae en ... paaIrw Ilqulentel, lilted tlene vient.a (20) dlas de pJasQ III partir de Ie feeha de Ie d.mandll ,y Ie nQtll1caclQn. U Ited debe pre.entar una aparlencla elCl'lt.a Q en per.QIIa Q por ~dOl ,y ardIlvar en Ie Cllrt, en fQrma escrlta .11.8 defeJlllll Q .11I QbJeclnnel II ... demandu en cQntra de eU persona. Sea aviladQ que .1 lilted nOl .e dIflenc!a, III CQrte tQmara medidu y puede entral' una l)rden Cllntra lilted IIn prtlvlo .viIo Q nutll1caclon y por cualquler queja Q alIviQ que e. pedido en Ie petldon de dtmanda. U .ted puede perd.r d1nllrQ Q .11I prQplecladel Q OItrOll derechOll importantea para lilted, LLEVE !lSTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO BUFICIENTE DE PAGM TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PIlRSONA 0 LLAME POft TELEFONO A LA OFlCINA CUYA DlRECCION BE ENCUENTRA EBCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONnE BE PUEDE CONSEQUlR ABISTENCIA LEGAL. CQurt AdmlnletratQr 4th Floor, Cumberland CQunty CQurthQllle Carllele, PA 17013 (717) 240.6200 , ' I " J(IMBIRLY M. rURMAN Plaintiff , IN THB COURT or COMMON PLIAS , CUMBIRLANP COUNTY, PINNSY~VANIA , I No. r;~'. 31.'/ C4v../ ~.--. , , , , , , v. RICHARD K. BITTS, and DQMlSTIC RILATIONS elCTION or CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PINNSYLVANIA Defendant. Plaintiff, KIMBIRLY M. FURMAN, by and through her ooun.el, MIRIN . JACOBSON, and Robert S. Mirin, I.quire, file. thi. oomplaint and in .upport thereof aver. the following' 1. The plaintiff, Kimberly M. Furman, i. an individual re.iding at 204 North Pitt Street in the City of Carli.le, County of Cumberland, and Commonwealth of penn.ylvania. 2. The defendant, Riohard K. Bett., i. employed a. Direotor of The Pome.tic Relatione Section of Cumberland County, 'enneylvania, looated at 13 North Hanover Street, Carli.le, 'enn.ylvania, 17013. He ie re.pon.ible for the adminietration and operation of the Domeetic Relation. Section to Cumberland County, Penneylvania. 3. The defendant, Dom.etic Relation. Section of Cumberland County, penn.ylvania, i. a local/oounty agency governed pureuant to the law. of the commonwealth of Penneylvania to adminieter and enforoe ohild eupport and related matter. for the County of CUlIIberland. 4. In pureuit of a claim for child .upport from an abeent father, the plaintiff contacted both in writing and in pereon variou. governmental agenciee to a..iet her in eeeking child .upport. On. .uch agency wa. the dome.tic Relation. Section. of Cumberland County, Penn'Ylvania. 6. Defendant Bett. wrote a letter, datld July 7, 1993, to Mary Anne Seitz, a olaim. inve.tigation agent for the >>enn.ylvania Bureau of Child Support Bnforcemlnt at the Department of Welfare, in referenoe to the Plaintiff at her r.que.t for a..ietanc. with h.r claim for child .upport. Ii. In that letter, the D.hndant Bett. .tated that "In aotuality, a lot of her [ the Plaintiff',) probllm. might be .olv.d .u .h. quit d..ping with her drug dlllen". A true and correct oopy of that letter 11 attached a. Bxhibit "A". 7. The l.tter wa. ..nt by Mary Anne Seitz to the United State. Hou.e of Repre.entative. at the office of the Honorable William Goodling, after Repre.entative Goodling contacted the Bureau of Child Support Bnforcement on the plaintiff'S behalf. 8. Congre..man Goodling wrote a letter, d~ted Augu.t 9, 1994 to the plaintiff and therein i.ncluded a copy of the d1lparaging , letter written by Defendant Bett.. A true and correct oopy of that letter 11 attaohed III Bxhibit "B". 9. The letter by the defendant has cau.ed the plaintiff great grief, humiliation, and embarra..m.nt, gro.. feeling. of di.gu.t and anger, and alienation by the oommunity. 10. The plaintiff av.r. that .he ha. been publioly aoou.ed ~y the defendant of a crime b.cau.. the letter a.lert. that .he a..ociate. with "her" drug dealer.. a. Th. plaintiff ha. no drug dealer. and never ha. had .exu.l relation. with drug dealer.. 11. The plaintiff avers that she has been publicly accused by defendant of promiscuity thrClugh Defenllant' s a..ertion that she iI "Ileeping" with her drug d.alen a. The plaintiff has no drug dealer. and never ha. had sexual relations with drug dealer.. 12. The plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit in pursuit of this claim and other federal related claims, see Exhibit "C", whereupon Judge Rambo di.mi..ed the federal .uit and reque.ted the plaintiff to file her .tate claims in state cClurt, see exhibit "0". COUNT I - DEFAMATION 13. The allegation. of paragraph. 1 through 12 are incorporated herein by reference as if .et forth fully and at length. 14. The defendant'. letter i. a communication of a defamatory character becau.e in referring to the plaintiff a. "Ileeping with her drug dealen" it tends to harm the reputation of the plaintiff 10 as to lower her in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from dealing with her, 1~. Because the defendant stated that the plaintiff sleep. with "her" drug dealen, the dltfendant directly implied that the plaintiff has drug dealers. As a result, the letter imputed the Plaintiff'. commission of the indictable offense of illegal drug use. 16, By intentionally and/or negligently communicating the di.paragement to a third party, the defendant publi.hed the d.famatory remark.. 17. By olearly referring to the plaintiff by name in the letter, the defendant made the defamatory remark applicable to the Plaintiff. 18. By the clear malice evid.nt in the r.mark, the recipient, Repr..entativ. Goodling, and hi. .taff, ea.ily undar.tood it. application to the plaintiff a. it. defamatory meaning. 19. Bpecial harm re.ulted to the plaintiff becau.e .he ha. euffered humiliation and degradation in that the letter containing the defamatory remark. were .ent to an important governmental officer, her Conqre..ional repr..entative. The .ffect. of thi. harm have cau..d the plaintiff', .elf-..te.m to drop and have made the plaintiff feel a. an outca.t and may have deterred other. from a..ooiatinq with her. 20. By writing that the plaintiff" trouble. re.ult.d from her .le.ping with her drug d.aler., the def.ndant .howed int.ntional and r.ckl... indiffer.nc. to the right. of the plaintiff in maliciou.ly and lor negligently making the publioation. '., I' 'i'j 1.'1 i ,I , , , , [Ii '" WHIUfORIl, the plainUtf demand. oompen..tory duage., , punitive damag.. and other .uoh relief a. thi. Honorable Court deem. ju.t and appropr.iate. Re.peotfully Submitted, MIRIN . JACOBSON Pate. January 16, 1996 8150 Perry Street Harri.buI:9, PA 17111-6260 (717) 6U-161!l , , !'II' " , I.j , " I I, , , l.ll , , , , , , '''',1 , , Jr, 1,1 , , , , :", , .....1 ,I, , , , . " , 1.1 :j " I , " , " " , , " ", " ;,1 " " , " , '. 1'1 , II " I. " , " " I " 'I ,I ,', 'I, " 'I " , " , " ,Ii i~ , , 'i 'I. I," , r;.y " , i , d ': C):, , ". N I , D' .; " ", ~~'L-: ~, ' 'ii 'I i , ~ I , , , I 'I ,I , , I! " "\ t""'" PRBAMBLII AMD .OW CONI. PLAINT!", by Coun.el, Robert S. Mirin of MIRIH .. JACOBSOH and herewith lodg.. her cOllplaint in thh lII&tter ..eking and reque.ting, ~nter ali" restoration of her civil and property righte ba.ed upon her 10.. a. a con.equ9noe of dilcrimination by a .tate actor, appropdate cOllpen.ation for injury to hel;' civU right. and for libel and alander. Th.. referenced unlawful di.criDlination directed again.t plaintiff ari.e. froll plaintiff', race and gender. Venue for thh complaint of dhcdmination and libel and alander 11 .ppropri.tely fUed in the Middle Dhtdct and thh Court h.. federal .nd pendent juri.diction over the ,ubject matter of thi. di.pute, pur.u.nt to 28 U.S.C 51331 becau.e the ~ollplaint involve. federal qu..tion juri.diotion predicated upon 42 U.S.C. '1'83, .. well.. pend.nt .tate ol.im. of libel .nd .l.nder which grew out of the .ame tran.action or occurr.n~e of the 11983 claill. Thi. Honorable Court i. authorized and .mpowered to grant leg.l .nd equit.ble relief herein.fter reque.ted in thi. complaint. "ACTUAL AVIlRMllNTS 1. The plaintiff, ~imberly 'urman, i. .n Afric.n-American fe..le citizen of penn.ylv.ni., re.idinq .t 204 Horth pitt Street, Carli.le, Penn.ylvania, 17013. 2. The defendant, Richard K. Bette, h a white male .mployed a. a .tate actor and policy maker in hi. capacity a. th~ Director of the DOlle.tic Relation. section of CWllberland County, I , , I I' : I ' , I , , , . , , ' I II li ...." r-. 'enn.ylvania, looat.d et 13 No~th 8anov.~ Str..t, Carli.l., '.nn.ylvania, 17013. 8e i. re.pon.ibl. for the adaini.tration and op.ration of the Dome.tic aelation. S.ction of Cumb.rland County, '.nn.ylvania. 3. Th. def.ndant, Dome.tic Relation. '.ction of Cumb.rland County, '.nn.ylvania, i. a looal/county ag.ncy gov.rn.d pur.uant to the law. of the Commonw.alth of penn.ylvania to admini.t.r and enforoe ohild .uppox't: and related Jl\&tt.n for county of Cumberland. 4. In pur.uit of a claim for ohild .upport frOm an ab..nt father, the plaintiff contaot.d both in writing and 1n penon variou. gov.rnmental agencil. to a..lIt her in ,,'king ohild .upport. On. .uch agenoy wa. the Dom..tic aelation. S.ction of Cumberland County, Penn.ylvania, 5. The d.f.ndant Bett. w~ot. a l.tt.r, dat.d July 7, 1993, to Mary Ann. B.itz, a claim. inv..tigAtion ag.nt for the '.nn.ylvania Bur.au of Child Support Info~c.m.nt at the D.partment of W.Uar., in referenc. to the plaintiff and h.r nqu..t for a..i.tanc. with h.r claim for child .upport, 6. In .aid l.tt.r, a oopy of which i. addend.d a. Ixhibit "A", the d.f.ndant .tat.d that "In aotuality, a lot of her [the plaintiff'.1 problem. might be .olv.d if .h. quit .l..ping with h.r drug dealer.." 7. Thi. l.tt.r writt.n by d.f.ndant wa. ..nt by Mary Anne I.ita at the Bur.au of Child Support .nforc.m.nt to Wa.hington, DC, to the Bou.. of R.pre.entatin at the offic. of the Bonorabl. "iiliam Gooaling, aft.r Congr...man GOOdling contaot.d the Bur. au of Child Support Inforo.m.nt on plaintiff'_ b.half. '. I I I I, , ,I I I " ,- e. R.p~.'.nt.tiv. William Goodling w~ot. a l.tt.~ to plaintiff and th.rein mail.d a oopy of the lettu w~J.tt.n by d.f.ndant to the plaintiff on Augu.t 9, 1993. A copy of the l.tt.~ that accompani.d d.f.ndant'. l.tt.r i. .nolo..d ., Ixhiblt ".". t. rollowing the publication of thi. l.tt.~, the pl.intitt h.. n.v.r r.c.iv.d ..rvic. or b.n.tit. from the Do~.tic Relation. ..ction of Cumb.rland County, ,.nnaylv.nia. 10. Th. .tf.ct ot the lett.r by d.t.ndant ha. c.u.ed gr..t gri.f, humiliation, and .mba~~a"ment, g~o,. f..ling' of di,gu.t and ang'~, and ali.nation by the ccmmunity aa to the plaintift. 11. .) Th. plaintiff aver, that ,h. ha. b..n publicly aoou,.d by defendant of a o~im. ba..d on the lette~ a..ert:ing that .h. al..pa with "h.r" d~uq deal.~.. b) The plaintiff h., no drug deale~' and il not having ..xual r.lation. with d~ug deallr.. 12. .) The plaintiff .ven th.t .h. ha. b..n publicly .ccu..d by d.fend.nt of p~omi.cuity and .eriou. .exu.l lIi.conduct through d.fendant' a ....rtion th.t .h. i. "alleping" with "her" drug d.aler. to an .xtlnt pre..ntly unknown. b) The plaintiff ha. no drug d..l.r. and i. not having ..xual relation. with drug d..l.r.. . , I. , I I COUNT I - ~2 U.I.C. .1983 VIOLATION 13. The all.gaUon of p.uqraphl 1 through 12 are incorporated h.re,l.n by rdereno. .. if ..t forth fully and at length. 14. Th. litter writt.n by the dd.ndant .vid.nce. atate , I "....,' aotion and a OOIU',1 01 pro.odb.d .tate action und'J: .tatuta, oJ:dinano., J:Igulation, cUltO. or ulagl of lawl of the Commonwealth 01 "nn.ylvan1a which hay. cauled plaintiff to IUUU a depdvaUon 01 dght. and pdvUeg.. ..cured by the Con.Utut.l.on and law. .t.ncluding plaintiff" J:i9ht to equal protecUon undu the law, cau..d by the d.fendant, a .tate ICtOJ: undeJ: color of law, all in d'J:ogation of 42 U.S.C. ,lg83. 16. The incoJ:ponted length. 1&. The d.fendant'. conduct a. evidenoed by the lett'J: dated July 7, U93, conlUtut.. defeadon in the foE'lll of Ubel anc! .1andeJ: beoau.e it i. wholly fal.e Itatement. oontJ:ived with malio. to damage the plaintiff', J:eputation in the oommunity and with her Con9J:...ional R.pre.entativI a. w.ll a. thl Plnn.ylvania BUJ:.au of Child Support Inforo.ment at thl DIpartmlnt of Welfare. CO~T II - D.fAMA1IQN IPIND1N11 allegaUon. of paJ:aqraph. 1 through 12 an bluin by reterlno. a. if ..t forth fully and at WBIRlfORl, plaintiff dlmand. compln.atory d&m4ql', punitivI damage., and othlr .uah reli.f al thi. Bonorabl. Court dll.1 jUlt and apPJ:opriate. Re.pectfully) .ubmitt.ed, MIRXH .. -dACOB Datal-:!.l!lv 7. 1994 8YI 1150 Dlrry StreIt Barrilburgi PA 17111-52&0 (717) 5&1- 515 ....., inve.ti9ated her complaint. reqardin9 the Dome.tic Relation. Section and obtained a lett.r that ha. become the tooal point of thb law.uit. The letter, addr..eed to Mary Ann B.itz in the Bur..u of Child Support service., related to Plaintiff'. eftort. to obt.in ohild .upport payment. from the putative f.ather. The letter w.. authored by Richard Bett., Defendant in the in.tant ca.e and Direotor of the Dom..tic R.lation. Section, In the letter, Defendant .tatedl ItIn actuality, a lot of her problem. miqht be .olved if .he quit 8leepinq with h.r druq dealer.. It plaintiff claim. that a. a result of this letter, .he ha. be.n denied ...i.tence from the Dcme,tio Relation. seotion that .he i. le9ally entitled to receive, II. ADplio.ble L.v A federal di.trict oourt ha. juri.diotion over .ction. that ari.e under f.deral law. 28 u,s.c. 5 1331, Plaintiff ....rt. that juri.diction in the in.tant oa.e i. premi.ed an a f.d.r.l qu..tion. Specifically, Plaintiff claim. that .he i. entitl.d to r.lief under 42 U,S,C. 5 1983 becau.. Defendant'. remark. deprived her of a liberty or property inter..t in h.r 411'ged ri9ht to r.o.ive the a..i.tance of the Dome.tic Relation. Section. It app.ar. that .ome clarification of the riqht. implioated by I 1..3 b warranted. 2 " AO 72A (".v "'2) --. According to . 1983, 4ny per.on ,ubjected, under the color ot law, to "the deprivaticl1 ot any ri9ht. privU.qe., or immunitie. .eoured by the Con.titution and law." i. entitled to hold the .tate actor re.pon.1ble tor the deprivation liable tor redr... ot the per.on'. injurie., 42 V,B.C. . 1983. To determine whether . party hu an actionable olaim under thi. .ection, the court mu.t evaluate I (1) whether there wa. .tate action, and (2) whether the injury .uttered rel_ted to the deprivation ot a legally or constitutionally protected right or privileqe. Adicke. v. S.H. Kre.. , co" 398 U,S. 144 (1970), The supreme Court hu rec09nized that "con'ifre.. .hould not be under.tood to have attempted 'to make all tort. ot .t.te otticial. tederal orime., , " Paul v. Davi., 424 V.S. 693, 700 (1975). The ta.k ot determining whether or not ".tate action" IXiat. i. a dUUcult one, "[T)hen i. no e..y an.wer to the que.tion ot whether particular discriminatory conduct i. 'private' or ha. .uoh .tate involvement or nexus which would permit reliet under. 1983." Broderick v. A..oclated HOlD, Servo qt PhiladelDhia, !l36 F,2d 1/ 4 (3d Cir, 1976) (oiting Moo.e Ladee No. 107 V. Irvi./ 407 V,S, 163/ 172 (1972)), "The tact. in each cae. mu.t be .itted and the circumstance. weighed betore a determination a. to whether .tate action exists can be made," Broderick, 536 r.2d at 4 (citing Burton v. Wilmlnqton Parkine Authoritv, 365 V.I. 715, 722 (1961)). State action will be tound where an otficer ot' the .tate misuse. the power he i. entru.tad with to accompli.h a 3 AO 7tA IA.v, "12) prohibited end, a.A, ~~, Monroe v, paDe, 365 U.S. 167 (1961)/ Hpme Tal, , Tal. Co, v, ~oe Anaelee, 227 U.~. 278 (1913), Once a plaintiff hae proven that there wa. .tat. action, plaintiff mu.t al.o .how that .he wa. d.prived of a prot.cted riqht or privUeqe a. a r..ult of the .tat. actJ.on. A. a qen.ral propo.ition, S.ction 1983 l\Iay be u..d to I>rotect any riqht quaranteed under the Equal Protection or Due proc.s. Clau.e. of the Fourteenth Amendment, Shock v, 1..t.r, 405 F,2d 852 (8th Cir.), q.rt, deni.d, 394 U,S, 1020 (1969). Accordinqly, there are .xception. to the qeneral protections afforded, The Supreme Court ha. nohd in dicta "we think that the weiqht of our d.cision. ..tablishe. no con.titutional doctrin. conv.rtinq .very d.fam.tion by a public official into a deprivation of liberty within the meaninq of the Du. process Clause of the Fifth or Fourte.nth Amendment," Dav!., 424 U,S. at 702 (footnot. omitt.d), In Davi., the Cour':: w.nt on to state I "the Court has n.ver held that the mer. d.famation of an individual, wh.ther by brandinq him di.loyal or otherwi.e, wa. .ufficient to invoke the que ran tee. of procedural due proc...." 1.lL. at 706, III. Di.auaaian In the in.tant case, Plaintiff claims to have be.n depriv.d of a protect.d riqht .. the re.ult of action taken by the Pirector of the Domestic Relatione Section, plaintiff appear. to be ...ertinq that she ha. a protected liberty int.r.at in obtaininq 4 ,\072A I'-tv Mil the assistanoe ot the Dome.tic Relations Seotion to ~id her in qatherinq ohild support payments trom the tather ot her child. Further, Plaintitt contend. that this liberty interest arises trom the tact that the Commonwealth ot penn.ylvania aocepts tederal tundinq tor its Oome.tio Relations projects. Plaintitt posits that the aoeaptance of tederal tundinq siqnities that the Commonwealth ot Pennsylvania recoqnize. a substantial tederal interest in this areal and, that this recoqnition by the Commonwealth create. in Plaintitt a li~erty intere.t in the Domestic Relations Sections .ervices. Plaintitts arqument i. attenuated at best. Detendant ie an employee ot the oounty, and did write the alleqedly detamatory letter within the scope ot his employment. Detendant'. aotions there tore could be oonstrued as "state action." In addition to the seate action, Plaintitt mu.t show the deprivation of a protected riqht. Thio court fails to see either a protected riqht or deprivation thereot. Plaintiff is clearly entitled, a. a resident of Pennsylvania, to avail herself ot thl services ot the Domestic Relation. Section. Further, D.fendant'. letter at the very least exhibits an eb.e.,'ce or decorum "lid '.durtct'" judqment. Unfortunately, Plaintift has tailed to present any evidence ot a nexus between Detendant's distasteful commlnte and the deprivation of any protected riqht. There i. no evidlncl betor. this ccurt that beoaus. ot the letter Plaintiff wa. tre.t.d any ditforently than other persons seekinq the a..i.tanoe ot the !S AO 12A I"'v, "'2)