The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anita Brody, United States District Judge
On January 7, 2003, David and Karin Nadig filed a civil rights lawsuit against their former neighbors John and Mary Ann Nagel. On February 11, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, I will grant their motion.
From 1995 to early 2001, defendants allegedly harassed plaintiffs. Compl. ¶ 6. The incidents in question include defendant Mary Ann Nagel's making noises in and around plaintiffs' home as well as in public places like schools and stores when she encountered plaintiffs and their minor children. Comp. ¶¶ 7, 9. On October 1, 2000, plaintiff David Nadig questioned defendant John Nagel about the propriety of Mary Ann Nagel's behavior. Compl. ¶ 14. In response, defendant John Nagel trespassed on plaintiffs' property and the two men had a physical confrontation. Compl. ¶ 16. During the fight, it appears that plaintiff fractured defendant's jaw. Compl. Ex. C at 2. Based on this altercation, defendant John Nagel brought criminal charges and filed a civil action against plaintiff David Nadig. Compl. ¶ 17. Pursuant to the criminal action, John Nagel sent a "victim impact statement" to Judge Maurino J. Rossanese on May 14, 2001. Nagel appears to have sent this letter in order to influence and inform Judge Rossanese's decision regarding David Nadig's sentence for assaulting Nagel. In his letter, defendant complained that "[David Nadig's] continued harassment causes us to comply with the authorities and change our lifestyle to accommodate the defendant." Compl. Ex. C at 1. Defendant described in three pages of exhaustive detail the alleged harassment that he felt had limited his and his family's activities. Compl. Ex. C. at 1-3. Throughout his letter to Judge Rossanese, defendant made repeated references to his job as Manager of Montgomery Township, including the following request: "with the disdain that the defendant has for people like me who work as public servants, I respectfully request that the defendant's punishment should include significant community service work, specifically with municipal governments." Compl. Ex. C. at 3. Plaintiffs did not learn of this letter until October of 2002, when it was produced pursuant to a civil suit filed by the Nagels against the Nadigs in state court. Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 9-11.
Approximately three months after the altercation between the two men, defendant John Nagel faxed a letter to the Towamencin Township Police Department ("TTPD"), which alleged that, on the morning of January 8, 2001, plaintiff David Nadig chased and stalked Mary Ann Nagel. Compl. ¶ 20, Ex. A. Coincidentally, that same morning Officer Cotrone of the TTPD was outside defendants' residence during the period in question. Compl. Ex. B. Officer Cotrone had driven over in order to investigate plaintiffs' complaints about Mary Ann Nagel's custom of harassing David Nadig as he went to meet a local commuter van. Id. In his report on plaintiff's alleged stalking, Officer Cotrone dismissed the Nagels' complaint as "untrue." Id.
In the summer of 2001, plaintiffs moved to another home in a different county.
Plaintiffs' complaint lists six counts: (i) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (ii) conspiracy to interfere with plaintiffs' civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986; (iii) invasion of privacy; (iv) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (v) defamation; and (vi) civil conspiracy. Only the first two counts allege violations of federal law. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over those two claims and may, if it chooses, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining four claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1367(a).
Count I of plaintiffs' complaint alleges a violation of their civil rights under §§ 1983 and 1986.*fn1 Section 1983 provides that persons acting under color of state law may be found liable if they deprive an individual of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs allege that John Nagel, as Manager of Montgomery Township, is a state actor and that he and his wife's conduct deprived plaintiffs of their liberty and privacy interests as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Defendants contend that John Nagel, although a municipal employee, was acting in a private capacity and not under color of state law. Because I agree that, during the events in question, Nagel was not acting under color of state law, I will dismiss this count because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Government employees act under color of law when they perform their professional duties, whether they act in compliance with state law, contrary to it, or exercise professional discretion. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 176 (1961), rev'd on other grounds, Monell v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49-50 (1988). Consequently, "acts of a state or local employee in her official capacity will generally be found to have occurred under color of state law." Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 816 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing West, 487 U.S. at 49; Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 157 n. 5 (1978)). There are, however, circumstances in which public employees do not act under color of state law. Polk County v. Dodson, 451 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Barna, 42 F.3d at 816-17 (citing Delcambre v. Delcambre, 635 F.2d 407, 408 (5th Cir. 1981); D.T. v. Indep. Sch, Dist. No. 16, 894 F.2d 1176 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879 (1990)). Such circumstances include when a public employee is acting in a private, rather than official, capacity. Barna, 42 F.3d at 816 (holding that a public employee's "purely private acts which are not furthered by any actual or purported state authority are not acts under color of state law"). "It is well settled that an otherwise private tort is not committed under color of law simply because the tortfeasor is an employee of the state." Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1150 (3d Cir. 1995).
Courts considering whether a tort is committed under color of law recognize that "the key inquiry is whether the employee in committing the alleged act abused a power or position granted by the state." Pokalsky v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., No. 02-323, 2002 WL 1998175, *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2002) (citing Bonenberger v. Plymouth Township, 132 F.3d 20, 23 (3d Cir. 1997)). Complaints involving an abuse of state power by a public employee must allege a nexus between a defendant's interaction with the victim and the defendant's execution of his or her official duties. See Bonenberger, 132 F.3d at 23 (citing Mark, 51 F.3d at 1150). These allegations cannot be "unsupported conclusions [or] unwarranted inferences." Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 184 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038 (2001).
Plaintiffs have failed to allege a connection between defendant's position as Township Manager and his violation of plaintiffs' Constitutional rights that amounts to more than an unsupported conclusion. Although John Nagel's letter to Judge Rossanese does seem to try and curry favor by emphasizing his position as a public employee, defendant explicitly wrote the letter as a private victim rather than as a public official.*fn2 Nor would a reasonable reader, let alone a judge, have been swayed by complaints from a public employee whose alleged pain and suffering included having to refrain from behaving illegally.*fn3 Finally, in the allegedly defamatory letter, Nagel complains about the fact that the police departments of both Towamencin and Montgomery Townships and defendant's employers, the elected officials of Montgomery Township, were unmoved by defendant's suffering and possibly sympathized with David Nadig. Compl. Ex. C at 2. Nagel's letter, submitted by plaintiffs as an exhibit to their complaint, was not written in ...