Brill v. Croner et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW GLEN BRILL, et al., 	: Civil No. 3:25-CV-2393
:
Plaintiffs, 	:
: (Judge Mariani)
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
SHAWN CRONER, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Factual Background
This case comes before us for a screening review of the
	pro se
plaintiffs’ civil complaint.1 	Matthew Brill and Danielle Leeder filed this
action against Shawn Croner and Anthony Burko. 2 	From what we can
discern from the complaint, it appears that Brill and Croner struck a deal
whereby Brill would provide handy work at an apartment owned by
Croner in exchange for discounted rent for Brill and Leeder to live in the
apartment. 3 	However, after they moved in and Brill performed work on
the property for several months, he was informed by a constable that
1 Doc. 1.
2
Id.
3 Doc. 1-2 at 5.
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 9

2
Croner was apparently not the owner of the property and he was told to
vacate the property by the true owner, Anthony Burko.4 According to the
complaint, Brill sustained injuries while moving.5 	The complaint also
states Brill was charged criminally with failing to register the address in
June of 2024.6 Brill alleges that he was deprived of his personal property
that was left in the apartment, presumably due to the injury and arrest. 7
The complaint contains no legal bases for Brill’s claims but requests that
we grant summary judgment against the defendants.8
Along with this complaint, Brill filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 9 	After consideration, we will grant Brill’s
motion for leave to proceed IFP for screening purposes only, but after
consideration, we will recommend that this complaint be dismissed.
4
Id. at 6.
5
Id.
6
Id. A search of the public docket reveals that Brill was charged on June
12, 2024, with failing to register his address with the Pennsylvania State
Police in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4915.2.
Commonwealth v. Brill,
No. CP-40-CR-0002584-2024. This case remains pending in the Luzerne
County Court of Common Pleas.
7
Id. at 7-8.
8
Id. at 8.
9 Docs. 2, 5. 	We note that Leeder has not filed a motion for leave to
proceed IFP, nor has she signed the complaint.
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 9

3
II. Discussion
A. Screening of
Pro Se Complaints – Standard of Review
We have a statutory obligation to preliminarily review
	pro se
complaints 	brought 	by 	plaintiffs 	given 	leave 	to 	proceed
	in 	forma
pauperis. 10 	We review such complaints to determine whether there are
frivolous or malicious claims, or if the complaint fails to state a claim
upon 	which 	relief 	may 	be 	granted.11 	This 	statutory 	preliminary
screening mirrors review under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides for dismissal of a complaint for “failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 12
With 	respect 	to 	this 	legal 	benchmark, 	under 	federal 	pleading
standards a plaintiff is required to set forth a “short and plain statement
of 	the 	claim 	showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief.” 13 	In
determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief under this
pleading standard, a court must accept the factual allegations in the
10
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
11
Id.
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 9

4
complaint as true and accept “all reasonable inferences that can be drawn
from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-
movant.” 14 	However, a court is not required to accept legal conclusions
or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”15
As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has aptly summarized:
[A]fter
Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-
part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim
should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the
complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any
legal conclusions.
	Id. Second, a District Court must then
determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are
sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for
relief.”
Id. at 1950. In other words, a complaint must do more
than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. A complaint
has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts.
See Phillips,
515 F.3d at 234–35. As the Supreme Court instructed in
Iqbal,
“[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint
has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is
entitled to relief.’ ”
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. This “plausibility”
determination will be “a context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense.”
Id. 16
14
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);
Jordan v.
Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).
15
Id.;
see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice”).
16
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009).
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 9

5
Generally, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court relies on
the complaint and its attached exhibits, as well as matters of public
record. 17 	A court can also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s]
that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the
plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached] documents.”18 Additionally,
if the complaint relies on the contents of a document not physically
attached to the complaint but whose authenticity is not in dispute, the
court may consider such document in its determination. 19 	However, the
court may not rely on any other part of the record when deciding a motion
to dismiss. 20
Finally, when reviewing a
pro se complaint, we are reminded that
such complaints are to be construed liberally, “so ‘as to do substantial
17
Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007).
18
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192,
1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
19
See Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir.
2002).
20
Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261.
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 9

6
justice.’” 21 	We must apply the relevant law even if the
pro se plaintiff
does not mention it by name. 22
B. This Complaint Should be Dismissed.
After review, we conclude that the complaint fails to comply with
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	Rule 8 dictates that a
complaint 	must 	contain 	“a 	short 	and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the 	claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 23 It is well established that
“[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has
not ‘shown’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”24 	A complaint must
contain 	“more 	than 	unadorned, 	the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation[s].” 25
Here, the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to identify any legal bases for
their claims against the defendants. 	Brill claims to have suffered some
sort of physical injury and vaguely uses the word “negligence” in the
21
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(f)).
22
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing
Higgins v.
Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
24
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211 (citations omitted).
25
Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 9

7
complaint, but the complaint is entirely devoid of any actual claims
against the named defendants. Additionally, it is entirely unclear what,
if any, claims Leeder is asserting against these individuals on her own
behalf. 26 	Simply put, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8’s basic
requirement that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2).
Moreover, because we cannot discern any federal cause of action
brought against these presumably private individual defendants, we note
for the plaintiffs that in order for this court to have jurisdiction over state
law claims, there must be complete diversity among the parties. Section
1332(a) states: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between -- (1) citizens of
different States[.]”27 	Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity—
26 Because Brill is proceeding
pro se, he is unable to represent Leeder in
any claims she has against the defendants, as the Third Circuit has held
that “a non-attorney may not represent other parties in federal court.”
Murray on behalf of Purnell v. City of Phila., 901 F.3d 169, 170 (3d Cir.
2018).
27 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 7 of 9

8
that 	is, 	that 	“no 	plaintiff 	be 	a 	citizen 	of 	the 	same 	state 	as 	any
defendant.”28 The plaintiffs’ civil cover sheet attached to their complaint
indicates that at least one of the defendants is a citizen of the same state
as the plaintiffs, which would divest this court of jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs’ state law claims. 29
However, while we have concluded that the complaint does not
state a claim at this time, recognizing that the plaintiffs are
	pro se
litigants, we recommend that the court allow them an opportunity to
amend the complaint to endeavor to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. 30 If the plaintiffs choose to amend their complaint, Leeder is
placed on notice that both plaintiffs must sign the complaint, and Leeder
must file a separate, complete application to proceed IFP in this case. 31
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED
that the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed without prejudice to the
28 Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010).
29
See Doc. 1-1.
30
See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247,
253 (3d Cir. 2007);
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).
31
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading . . . must be signed by . . . a
party personally if the party is unrepresented.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 8 of 9

9
plaintiffs endeavoring to correct the defects cited in this report, provided
that the plaintiffs act within 21 days of any dismissal order.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule
72.3:
Any 	party 	may 	object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	proposed
findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or
matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a
recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a
habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk
of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties,
written 	objections 	which 	shall 	specifically 	identify 	the
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report
to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.
The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall
apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those
portions 	of 	the 	report 	or 	specified 	proposed 	findings 	or
recommendations to which objection is made and may accept,
reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge,
however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her
discretion or where required by law, and may consider the
record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or
her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge
may 	also 	receive 	further 	evidence, 	recall 	witnesses 	or
recommit 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge 	with
instructions.
Submitted this 3 rd day of February 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02393-RDM Document 8 Filed 02/03/26 Page 9 of 9