The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is Defendant, Estate of Joseph Rusek, construed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ("the Motion") (doc. 169) filed with the Court on October 26, 2006.
For the following reasons, the Motion (doc. 169) will be granted and this action dismissed as against the Estate of Joseph Rusek.
This pro se action was filed in this Court by Plaintiffs Peter and Stella Egnotovich ("Plaintiffs") on September 8, 2005. (Rec. Doc. 1). With respect to the Defendant Estate of Joseph Rusek ("Estate"), the Plaintiffs filed a panoply of motions for default judgment, which were considered and denied by this Court.
However, likely due to the confused nature of the Plaintiffs' filings in this matter, the Estate believed a default judgment had been entered against it, and promptly filed a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. (Rec. Doc. 169). We construed the Estate's Motion to Vacate Default Judgment (doc. 169) as a motion to dismiss by ordered dated November 7, 2006. To date, the Motion has been fully briefed by the parties and is therefore ripe for our review.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 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 Defendant Estate.
As it pertains to the Estate, Plaintiffs allege that the Estate owns property over which the Plaintiffs have an easement to allow them access to their property. (Rec. Doc. 40, ¶¶13-14). Aside from this reference, there is no reference in the amended complaint as to why the Estate is listed as a Defendant. There is no allegation that the Estate engaged in any particular conduct that violated the federal laws or constitutional provisions outlined in Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
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 Estate moves this Court to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety as against it. We shall undertake a separate analysis of ...