United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
GARY E. MANUEL, Plaintiff,
GRACE MANUEL BOWMAN, Defendant.
March 16, 2018, Gary E. Manuel, proceeding pro se,
filed a Complaint against Grace Manuel Bowman as well as a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. By Memorandum
and Order entered on March 20, 2018, the Court granted Mr.
Manuel leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed
his Complaint, and provided leave to file an amended
complaint within thirty (30) days. Manuel v. Bowman,
No. 18-1136, 2018 WL 1403888, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2018).
Specifically, the Court dismissed Mr. Manuel's Complaint
for the following reasons: (1) failure to comply with Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) failure to
state claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, the RICO statute,
the Federal Tort Clkims Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Id. at *2-4. On March 27, 2018, the Court received
Mr. Manuel's Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) For the
following reasons, the Court will dismiss the Amended
Amended Complaint, Mr. Manuel contends that Ms. Bowman
"treated [him differently] because of [his] disability,
discriminated upon [him] by cutting [him] out of [his] fair
part of [his deceased] uncle's estate stopping [him] from
getting a fair part of [his] inheritance." (Am. Cpmpl.
at 1.) He alleges that Ms. Bowman and other unknown
individuals "conspired to conduct! or participate,
directly or indirectly to deprive [him] of life, liberty
an[d] property." (Id. at 2.) Mr. Manuel also
vaguely asserts that Ms. Bowman is a landlord who
"run[s] a business or property rentals, " therefore
making her a "privat[e] [entity]." (Id.)
He argues that Ms. Bowman's actions have violated the ADA
as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. (Id. at 2-5.) As relief, he seeks,
inter alia, damages and an injunction to stop Ms.
Bowman from "harassing], assault[ing], beating,
molesting, wounding, or stalking" him. (Id. at
STANDARD OF REVIEW
noted above, the Court previously granted Mr. Manuel leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, under 28
U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court is required to
dismiss the Amended Complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal! Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,
240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine
whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, J556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory
statements and naked assertions will not suffice.
Id. As Mr. Manuel is proceeding pro se, the
Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v.
Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Manuel again alleges that Ms. Bowman's actions have
violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
shall have the same right in every State and Territory to
make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the Security of persons and property as is
enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be Subject to like
punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions
of every kind, and to no other.
42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). As the Court previously informed
Mr. Manuel, to state a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff
"must allege facts in support of the following elements:
(1) [that plaintiff] is a member of a racial minority; (2)
intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant;
and (3) discrimination concerning one or more of the
activities enumerated in the statute[, ] which includes the
right to make and enforce contracts." Brown v.
Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2001)
(quoting Yelverton v. Lehman, No. Civ. A. 94-6114,
1996 WL 296551, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1996), aff'd
mem., 175 F.3d 1012 (3d Cir. 1999)) (alterations in
original). Once again, however, nothing in the Amended
Complaint indicates that Ms. Bowman discriminated against him
on the basis of race concerning one of the activities set
forth above. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint, as pled,
still fails to state a claim pursuant to § 1981.
Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Manuel appears to again vaguely raise claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Ms. Bowman's actions
violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. As the Court previously informed Mr. Manuel, he
cannot maintain a § 1983 claim against Ms. Bowman
because she is not a state actor. Parratt v. Taylor,
451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981); see also West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police
Dep't, 635 F.3d 606, 609 (3d Cir; 2011).
Accordingly, Mr. Manuel's § 1983 claims will be
Claims Under the ADA
Mr. Manuel again suggests that Ms. Bowman violated Titles II
and III of the ADA, as well as the ADA's anti-retaliation
provisions. Title II provides that "no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such
disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied
the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a
public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such
entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Mr. Manuel argues that
Ms. Bowman is a public entity because she is a landlord who
manages property rentals. (Am. Compl. at 2.) However, nothing
in the Complaint suggests that Ms. Bowman has discriminated
against Mr. Manuel based upon his disabilities in connection
with her services as a ...