United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. REISINGER, Plaintiff
MDJ RICHARD CRONAUER, et al., Defendants
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22, 2019, plaintiff Joseph R. Reisinger filed, pro
se, an incomplete complaint, in clear violation of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, appearing to claim violations of his
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983 regarding
the alleged illegal and fraudulent October 2018 conveyance of
his Luzerne County, Pennsylvania house, by the Luzerne County
Tax Claim Bureau, to defendant JB Asset Management, LLC,
during the pendency of his Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Petition. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff appears to allege that
the conveyance and acquisition of his house by JB Asset
Management was in violation of his due process rights as well
as federal law since the house was listed as an asset in his
Bankruptcy Petition and was allegedly part of his Bankruptcy
Estate. Also named as defendants are: Magisterial District
Judge Richard J. Cronauer; Iftekhar Biplob, owner of JB Asset
Management, LLC; Bankruptcy Judge Robert N. Opel, II; William
G. Schwab, Esq., Chapter 7 Trustee; D. Troy Sellars, Esq.,
U.S. Trustee; and Adam R. Weaver, Esq., Special Counsel in
plaintiff's bankruptcy case.
particular, plaintiff alleges that he purchased the house in
March 2013 and that he was the legal owner of the property.
However, plaintiff states that due to an oversight the deed
to the house was not recorded after his purchase. He states
that he filed his Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition on October
22, 2018, and that he listed the house as one of his assets
making the house part of his Bankruptcy Estate. Plaintiff
states that he then properly recorded the deed to the house
on October 24, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that even though his
Bankrupcty Estate became the proper owner of the house, the
Tax Claim Bureau, outside of the Bankruptcy Court and
seemingly in violation of the automatic stay, unlawfully sold
the house to JB Asset Management at a tax sale on October 25,
2018. The deed of the house to JB Asset Management was then
recorded on February 19, 2019. It appears that after the sale
of the house to JB Asset Management, plaintiff remained in
possession of the house and his tenants remained in the
and JB Asset Management then filed an ejectment action
against plaintiff with Judge Cronauer seeking the judge to
find that JB Asset Management was the legal owner of the
house and that Biplob could legally enter the house. Judge
Cronauer conducted a hearing on June 11, 2019. Plaintiff
states that Judge Cronauer issued an illegal Order finding
that JB Asset Management lawfully purchased the house and,
that he and his tenants owed JB Asset Management rent and
related utilities for occupying the house after it was sold
at the tax sale. Additionally, plaintiff states that JB Asset
Management was granted the authority by an Order issued by
Judge Cronauer to take possession of the house on July 22,
2019 at 9:30 a.m.
relief, plaintiff appears to seek the court to set aside the
alleged illegal purchase and transfer of his house to JB
Asset Management, and to prohibit JB Asset Management from
taking possession of the house since he claims that Judge
Cronauer's Order was legally void.
filed along with his complaint, plaintiff submitted a motion
for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 2), an amended motion for
an emergency preliminary injunction with exhibits, (Doc. 3),
an incomplete and unreadable handwritten motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, (Doc. 4), and an unreadable
handwritten motion seemingly requesting the court to expedite
ruling on his emergency preliminary injunction motion, (Doc.
emergency preliminary injunction, plaintiff seeks this court
to enjoin defendants JB Asset Management and Biplob from
taking physical possession of his house on July 22, 2019 at
9:30 a.m. since he alleges it was unlawfully transferred to
them and that Judge Cronauer's Order was illegal.
reviewing plaintiff's complaint and motions, the court
will deny plaintiff's request for immediate injunctive
relief. The court will dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to file a proper pleading under Rule 8, for failure
to state any basis invoking this court's jurisdiction
and, for failure to state a cognizable claim. The court can
raise sua sponte subject matter jurisdiction issues.
See Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc. 347 F.3d 72, 77
(3d Cir. 2003). However, the court will allow plaintiff to
amend his complaint regarding any constitutional and federal
claims he is attempting to assert based on the stated
deficiencies of his original complaint, including directing
plaintiff to file an amended complaint in conformance with
Rule 8 as well as a proper motion to proceed in forma
plaintiff fails to state any basis to invoke this court's
jurisdiction in his complaint, to the extent plaintiff is
deemed as alleging violations of his constitutional rights
and violations of federal law, the court would have
jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331
and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a). Venue would be appropriate in
this court it is alleged that constitutional violations
occurred in this district since all parties are located here.
See 28 U.S.C. §1391.
state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must meet two
threshold requirements: 1) that the alleged misconduct was
committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2)
that as a result, he was deprived of rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988);
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981),
overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-331 (1986). If a defendant
fails to act under color of state law when engaged in the
alleged misconduct, a civil rights claim under section 1983
fails as a matter of jurisdiction, Polk Cnty. v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 315 (1981), and there is no need
to determine whether a federal right has been violated.
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982).
defendant in a civil rights action must have personal
involvement in the alleged wrongs; liability cannot be
predicated solely on the operation of respondeat
superior.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845
F.2d 1195, 1207-08 (3d Cir. 1988). See also Sutton v.
Rasheed,323 F.3d 236, 249 (3d Cir.
2003)(citing Rode). “Personal
involvement can be shown through allegations of personal
direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence.”
Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Accord ...