Rosalee V. Zarrow v. Inglis House, et al.

Summary

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants Rosalee V. Zarrow leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses her complaint. The court concludes that the defendants were not plausibly alleged to be state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the complaint failed to state a Title VII hostile work environment claim because it did not allege discrimination based on protected-class status. Claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242 are dismissed with prejudice, while the § 1983, breach-of-contract, and Title VII claims are dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim because Zarrow did not plausibly allege that Inglis House or Henwood acted under color of state law. The § 1983 claims were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.
2. The complaint failed to state a plausible Title VII hostile-work-environment claim because it did not allege that Zarrow was harassed because of membership in a protected class. The Title VII claim against Inglis House was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.
3. The complaint failed to state a breach-of-contract claim because it did not mention a contract, identify contractual obligations, or allege a breach. Any breach-of-contract claim was dismissed without prejudice.
4. 18 U.S.C. § 242 does not create a private right of action. Claims based on § 242 were dismissed with prejudice because that deficiency could not be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the defendants were a private nursing home and a private resident and the complaint alleged no facts showing state action.
2. Whether the complaint stated a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim where it alleged harassment but did not allege that the harassment was because of membership in a protected class.
3. Whether the complaint stated a breach-of-contract claim where it merely referenced a Pennsylvania statute of limitations and identified breach of contract on the civil cover sheet without alleging a contract or breach.
4. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 242 provides a private right of action.
5. Whether the complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Disposition

dismissed