The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terrence F. McVerry United States District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is the MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, with brief in support filed by Defendants (Document Nos. 3 and 4, respectively), the response in opposition filed by Plaintiffs (Document No. 5), and the Reply Brief filed Defendants (Document No. 8). For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
When considering a motion to dismiss the court accepts as true all well pleaded allegations of fact. Pennsylvania Nurses Ass'n v. Pennsylvania State Educ. Ass'n, 90 F.3d 797, 799-800 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1110 (1997). In addition, the court construes all reasonable inferences from those allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. The complaint will be dismissed only if there is "no set of facts" which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require detailed pleading of the facts on which a claim is based, they simply require "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," enough to "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Conley, 355 U.S. at 47.
Generally, "to the extent that [a] court considers evidence beyond the complaint in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, it is converted to a motion for summary judgment." Anjelino v. New York Times Co., 200 F.3d 73, 88 (3d Cir. 1999). However, in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may look beyond the complaint to matters of public record, including court files and records, and documents referenced in the complaint or essential to a plaintiff's claim which are attached to a defendant's motion. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
Attached to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants are copies of various court files and records. Because these documents are matters of public record and are essential to Plaintiffs' claims, the Court has considered these documents without the necessity of converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1196-97.
As the law requires, all disputed facts and inferences are resolved most favorable to Plaintiff. The following background is drawn from the Complaint and the factual allegations therein are accepted as true for the purpose of this opinion.
In 1978, Mellon Bank, N.A. issued Plaintiffs a mortgage for a personal residence located in Crafton Borough, Allegheny County, Pa. In 1998, Mellon Bank, N.A. obtained a default judgment in a foreclosure action against Plaintiffs and purchased their property at a Sheriff's sale. Through a subsequent action, Mellon Bank, N.A. evicted the Plaintiffs from the property on February 11, 1999, and has been in possession of the property since that time.
Defendant Reed Davis, Sr., an attorney, represented Mellon Bank, N.A. in the foreclosure and eviction proceedings.
Since 1999, Plaintiffs, pro se, have filed numerous lawsuits and complaints against Defendants in state and federal court, all of which have been unsuccessful in attempting to collaterally attack the judgment in the foreclosure action. In fact, since 1999, Plaintiffs have attempted to challenge the validity of the foreclosure and eviction more than ten times in at least four different courts, i.e., the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. All of Plaintiff's previous legal actions have been dismissed and/or declared frivolous by the courts.
In the instant complaint Plaintiffs once again attempt to challenge the validity of the foreclosure and eviction. Plaintiffs aver that "[t]he latest denial of writ of certiorari was received on December 3, 2006., on appeal from the Supreme Court of Washington, D.C. Due to new evidence that was not available to Plaintiff prior to 2002, plaintiff desires to include within this case under Exhibits to further clarify Case and position., proving due to the ongoing over-payments, that the property was paid in full." Complaint, at ¶¶ 7 and 8.
A. Lack of Subject Matter ...