Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marin v. McClincy

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

April 11, 2014

MEL M. MARIN, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM MCCLINCY and MELISSA A. THOMPSON, Defendant

Decided April 10, 2014.

Page 603

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 604

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 605

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 606

MEL M. MARIN, Plaintiff, Pro se, Catonsville, MD.

For WILLIAM MCCLINCY, MELISSA A. THOMPSON, In Their Personal Capacities And In Their Official Capacities, Defendants: Thomas P. McGinnis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jeffrey D. Truitt, Karin M. Romano, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA.

OPINION

Page 607

David Stewart Cercone, United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

Mel M. Marin (" plaintiff" ) filed a complaint in this Court on July 20, 2011, naming Melissa Thompson (" Ms. Thompson" ) and William McClincy (" Mr. McClincy" ) (" defendants" ) and alleging violations of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments along with several state law claims.[1] (Doc. No. 4). Presently before

Page 608

this Court are the parties' motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 34, 38). For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion [34] will be granted and plaintiff's motion [38] will be denied.

II. Background

Pennsylvania requires all state agencies to obtain the " Social Security number of an individual who has one on any application for a professional or occupational license or certification." 23 Pa.C.S. § 4304.1(a)(1)-(2). On December 1, 2010 plaintiff submitted his application for Emergency Medical Service (" EMS" ) certification through reciprocity to the Emergency Medical Management Cooperative West (" EMMCO" ) in Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 33 at ¶ 3); (Doc. No. 40 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff did not provide his social security number in the designated space on the Pennsylvania application. (Doc. No. 36, Exhibit C-1). His application was reviewed by EMMCO employee Ms. Thompson who advised plaintiff in a letter dated December 20, 2010 that the application was incomplete because he had not included his Social Security number. (Doc. No. 33 at ¶ 4); (Doc. No. 36, Exhibit C at ¶ 9). Ms. Thompson sent the incomplete application back to plaintiff and asked that he resubmit a completed form. ( Id. ). Plaintiff returned the letter and the incomplete application to Ms. Thompson. (Doc. No. 36 at ¶ 12). Plaintiff alleges that the Third Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit sealed his military record, which included his social security number, in prior cases due to his classified military service with the United States Special Forces. (Doc. No. 33 at ¶ 6). He allegedly contacted the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (" the Bureau of EMS" ) in Harrisburg, Pa and received permission to submit the record from one of these cases, which contained his social security number, in lieu of a completed application. ( Id. ).

Plaintiff resubmitted the incomplete application along with a copy of an application he has previously submitted in California which included his social security number.[2] (Doc. No. 40 at ¶ 1); (Doc. No. 36, Exhibit C-3). He instructed Ms.

Page 609

Thompson to process the Pennsylvania application by using the information from the California application. (Doc. No. 36 at ¶ 14-15). Plaintiff requested that Mr. McClincy, Executive Director of EMMCO, reassign the processing of Plaintiff's application to another employee. (Doc. No. 33 at ¶ 8); (Doc. No. 36 at ¶ 21). Plaintiff alleges that Mr. McClincy explained that EMMCO could verify the California application and that he would have it done immediately. (Doc. No. 33 at ¶ 9). Defendants were able to verify plaintiff's California license but Ms. Thompson avers she was unable to complete the Pennsylvania application because the Pennsylvania Department of Health (" the Department" ) requires that applicants complete their own applications. (Doc. No. 36, Exhibit A at ¶ 8-9). Her sworn affidavit provides the following:

7. The Pennsylvania Department of Health directs EMMCO West to return incomplete applications to the applicant with instructions as to what information is missing.
8. Pursuant to the direction of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, because Plaintiff did not provide his social security number, I was required to return Plaintiff's application to him . . .
12. Pursuant to the direction of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, I am not permitted to complete Plaintiff's application for him.

(Doc. No. 36 at Exhibit C). Mr. McClincy's sworn affidavit similarly provides:

7. The Pennsylvania Department of Health directs EMMCO West to return incomplete applications to the applicant with instructions as to what information is missing.
8. Pursuant to the direction of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, because Plaintiff did not provide his social security number, Ms. Thompson returned Plaintiff's application to him and asked him to resubmit the paperwork once it was completed . . .
19. Plaintiff's complaints or other communications regarding Ms. Thompson's inability to process his application and/or complete his application for him were not considered in making the decision to continue to comply with the Pennsylvania Department of Health's direction to return Plaintiff's incomplete application to him with instructions as to what information is missing.

(Doc. No. 36 at Exhibit B).

In a letter dated April 27, 2011 Ms. Thompson informed plaintiff that she and Mr. McClincy had been instructed that they were not permitted to complete the application for him. (Doc. No. 36, Exhibit G). Ms. Thompson asked plaintiff to complete the application and return it at which time she would " be happy to process it." ( Id. ). Plaintiff did not resubmit a completed application. (Doc. No. 36 at ¶ 25).

III. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment may be granted if, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment may be granted against a party who fails to adduce facts sufficient to establish the existence of any element essential to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.