The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Jones III United States District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is the Judicial Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ("the Motion")(doc. 82) filed by Defendants the Honorable Patricia Corbet, S. John Cottone, Robert A. Mazzoni, Carmen D. Minora, Carlon M. O'Malley, and Ronald C. Mackay, Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas Court Administrator (collectively "Judicial Defendants") on March 16, 2006.
For the following reasons, the Motion (doc. 82) will be granted.
This pro se action was filed in this Court by Plaintiffs Peter and Stella Egnotovich ("Plaintiffs") on September 8, 2005. (Rec. Doc. 1). Thereafter, on March 7, 2006, we granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. (Rec. Doc. 69). The instant Motion was filed by the Judicial Defendants on March 16, 2006. (Rec. Doc 82). The Motion has been fully briefed and is therefore ripe for review.
The Plaintiffs' pro se complaint is lengthy, and depicts a story covering events over the last thirty years. The essence of the complaint seems to be that a massive conspiracy was formed by the fifty-five defendants against the Plaintiffs. Due to the sheer volume of factual allegations specified in the complaint, we shall reiterate here only the allegations made with respect to the Judicial Defendants.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint sets forth in considerable detail their extreme dissatisfaction with the way in which a state court litigation involving them was conducted, as well as the results of that litigation. For example, in paragraph 8 of the amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that" [v]irtually all of the evidence in support of the . . . causes of action are contained in a number of court files in the Lackawanna County courthouse, the Commonwealth Court of Appeals . . .and the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." (Rec. Doc. 40 at 7). Plaintiff alleges similar allegations throughout the amended complaint. Plaintiffs' allegations as to all of the Judicial Defendants concern details of and Plaintiffs' objections to various aspects of the state court proceedings involving them.
In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), a court must accept the veracity of a plaintiff's allegations. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1990). In Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996), our Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added that in considering a motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim argument, a court should "not inquire whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims." Furthermore, "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d3 310 (3d Cir. 1986).
The Judicial Defendants move this Court to dismiss the amended complaint as against them based on three separate grounds. We find each ground ...