Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Robinson v. Leschinske

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

June 27, 2018

JOEY LESCHINSKIE, et al., Defendants

          BRANN, D.J.




         On August 20, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Robinson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action by filing a Complaint against Joey Leschinskie (“Defendant Leschinskie”), [1] District Attorney Anthony Matulewicz (“Defendant Matulewicz”)[2] and Detective Degg Stark (“Defendant Stark”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1). Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases, (Doc. 6), and Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. 9). On May 29, 2018, the Court issued a Screening Order instructing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by June 20, 2018 to cure the defects found in the original Complaint. (Doc. 10). As of the date of this Report, Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint.

         After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, I conclude that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because Plaintiff has failed to file cure the defects in his Complaint (Doc. 1) within the time afforded by this Court, I RECOMMEND his Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I further RECOMMEND that both his Motion to Consolidate Cases (Doc. 6) and his Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 9) be DENIED AS MOOT.


         In his largely incomprehensible, seventy-seven (77) page Complaint, Plaintiff advances a series of allegations against several individuals, some of whom are not named as Defendants. This section represents the Court's best effort to make sense of these claims.

         As an initial matter, Plaintiff has simply written “see attached” in the “Statement of Claim” section of his Complaint, thus requiring the Court to mull through his highly disorganized and often nonsensical Complaint. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). In order to navigate the litany of allegations, Plaintiff has also included a five-page “Table of Contents, ” listed under a different case number (“cv. 17-1044”), ostensibly to catalogue the various pages and attachments. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-7).

         A. Sara, Stacey, and Brittany Radomski

         First, Plaintiff requests a “venue change” due to “purported corruption” involving Defendants, (Doc. 1, p. 14), and alleges that his daughter, Stacey Radomski (“Stacey”), in an alleged scheme with her mother, Sara Radomski (“Sara”), to change the custody arraignment such that Stacey would be able to live with Sara, physically assaulted him so as to provoke him to retaliate. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Stacey alleges in an affidavit that she wanted Plaintiff to give her “a black and blue” that she would then report to Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) and obtain a Protection from Abuse Order (“PFA”) against Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Stacey gave him a black eye, and that his other daughter, Brittney Radomski (“Brittney”) went to the hospital with a “fake injury” intending to “get [Plaintiff] in trouble [with CYS].” (Doc. 1, pp. 18-19). Plaintiff claims that the alleged actions of Stacey and Brittney are a part of a larger scheme, orchestrated by Sara and meant to harass him. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Plaintiff does not seem to request relief for any alleged wrongdoing by Sara, Stacey, or Brittney.

         Following the allegations against Sara, Stacey, and Brittney, the remaining allegations in the Complaint are generally split into two groups: those relating to Defendant Leschinskie, and those relating to Defendants Matulewicz and Stark.

         B. Allegations against Defendant Leschinskie

         As to Defendant Leschinskie, Plaintiff first alleges that Defendant Leschinskie called in a bomb threat to “SAHS” and knew about an investigation alleging conducted by the DA's office regarding Plaintiff blackmailing Sara. (Doc. 1, p. 20). He also claims that Defendant Leschinskie was involved in “voter machine tampering” and “write in ballots” tampering in order to influence the Shamokin Mayoral Primary in favor of John Brown. (Doc. 1, p. 21). I have summarized the facts underlying these allegations below.

         The first substantive mention of Defendant Leschinskie appears on a page entitled “Venue Change Order” and baldly asserts that Defendant Leschinskie “joined forces” with Defendants Matulewicz and Stark to “harm” Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 14). It is not clear what Plaintiff means by “joined forces, ” but Plaintiff intimates that he believes Defendant Leschinskie was privy to private information relating to an investigation involving Plaintiff and his daughter. (Doc. 1, p. 20). Plaintiff writes: “My question is why is Joey Leschinskie aware of this investigation?” Id. Plaintiff provides nothing further on this count.

         His next allegation against Defendant Leschinskie is as follows:

Joey Leschink [sic] told me and Judge Gimbec of voter machine tampering[, ] also write in ballots[. T]his was done on behalf of John Brown & Joey Leschinskie and to harm my vote count. . . . Joey came to me to make a deal with me for criminal immunity for the crimes he comited [sic] because of my contact with the White House as a Presidential field operative.

(Doc. 1, p. 21). He then provides an illegible list of crimes allegedly recounted to him by Defendant Leschinskie ranging from unreported campaign donations to fraudulently doctoring a pension plan. (Doc. 1, pp. 22-23).

         The remainder of the Complaint contains a smattering of Facebook posts, newspaper articles concerning a Shamokin mayoral race in which both Plaintiff and Defendant Leschinskie were candidates, emails between Plaintiff and CYS, voluntary statements to the City of Shamokin Police Department, Cover Sheets from other cases filed by Plaintiff, a Physician's Examination Report in which it was found that Plaintiff was exhibiting “paranoid delusions” and the his “insight & judgment [were] impaired, ” as well as several other documents. (Doc. 1, pp. 28-77). In this perplexing series of documents, he seems to allege that Joey Leschinskie was criminally involved in, among ...

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.