The opinion of the court was delivered by: McVerry, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court is the MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, with brief in support, filed by Defendant Municipality of Penn Hill (Document Nos. 19 and 20). By Text Order of August 10, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to respond to the Motion by August 31, 2012; however, to date, Plaintiffs have not filed a response.
This lawsuit is brought pursuant to a complaint filed by pro se plaintiffs, Leonard Dixon and December L. Dixon. The factual allegations made in the Complaint are vague and difficult to comprehend.
Plaintiffs are attempting to plead a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and contend that Defendant violated their constitutional rights (1) to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures;
(2) "to not be put twice in jeopardy for the same offence (sic), compelled to be witness against oneself, deprived of liberty or property, without due process of law, without just compensation;" and (3) to "compulsory process." Complaint at 4. Named as defendants are OSA Global Security, Penn Hills School District, and the Municipality of Penn Hills.
On March 2, 2012, Defendant Municipality of Penn Hills filed its Affirmative Defenses and Answer to the Complaint. By Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 12, 2012, the Court dismissed defendant OSA Global Security pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Penn Hills School District.
The instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is filed only on behalf of the remaining defendant, Municipality of Penn Hills.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits motions for judgment on the pleadings after pleadings are closed and "within such time as not to delay the trial." Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where the movant shows "that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Undertaking this analysis, courts view the facts in the pleadings and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 2005).
The Court will construe the Complaint liberally, as Plaintiffs bring this action pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Generally, 42 U.S.C. §1983 does not create substantive rights, but rather provides a remedy for a violation of rights created by federal law or the Constitution of the United States. 42 U.S.C. §1983; City of Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985). Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to ...