Robinson v. Sample News Group, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL J. ROBINSON, 	: Civil No. 4:25-CV-2306
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: (Judge Mehalchick)
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
SAMPLE NEWS GROUP, LLC, et al., :
:
Defendants. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This is a civil rights action filed by the
pro se plaintiff, Michael
Robinson. 1 	Robinson, who is a frequent filer in this court, asserts claims
of civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Sample 	News 	Group, 	LLC 	(“Sample 	News”), 	Timothy 	Zyla, 	Larry
Dekinsky, and ten unnamed individuals arising from a newspaper article
published on February 27, 2019.2 	The complaint alleges that
The News-
Item, a newspaper owned and operated by Sample News, published
Robinson’s photograph beneath the obituary section “with the deliberate
1 Docs. 1.
2
Id.
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 11

2
intent to convey that the plaintiff or his political candidacy was ‘dead.’” 3
Robinson claims that the Managing Editor of the newspaper, defendant
Zyla, admitted to publishing the article for that very purpose.4 Robinson
claims that the article caused his friends and supporters to believe he
passed.5 	As 	relief, 	Robinson 	requests 	in 	excess 	of 	$150,000 	in
compensatory and an unspecified amount of punitive damages.6
The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to amend his complaint, 7
seeking to add Anthony Matulewicz as a defendant for claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).8 	The
allegations in Robinson’s amended complaint are nearly identical to
those made in Robinson’s other civil case in this court, docketed at 4:25-
CV-1134. 	The amended complaint alleges that Matulewicz is engaging
in 	a 	widespread 	pattern 	of 	racketeering 	with 	various 	individuals,
3
Id. at 2.
4
Id.
5
Id. at 3.
6
Id. at 4.
7 Given that Robinson filed the motion to amend prior to service, the
amended complaint is deemed filed as docketed.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
We view the amended complaint as incorporating the allegations set
forth of the initial complaint.
8 Doc. 4.
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 11

3
including several individual defendants who are named in Robinson’s
other civil case. 	However, the facts alleged in the amended complaint
give no indication as to how they are related to Robinson’s initial
complaint.
Along with this complaint, Robinson filed a motion for leave to
proceed
in forma pauperis. 9 We will grant the motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis for screening purposes only but after consideration, we
will recommend that the motion to amend be denied and the complaint
be dismissed.
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
9 Doc. 2.
10
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
11
Id.
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 11

4
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
complaint as true, 14 and accept “all reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the
non-movant.” 15 	However, 	a 	court 	is 	not 	required 	to 	accept 	legal
conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” 16
As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has aptly summarized:
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
14
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
15
Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d
Cir. 1994).
16
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”).
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 11

5
[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.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949
. 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. 17
Generally, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court relies on
the complaint and its attached exhibits, as well as matters of public
record. 18 	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.”19 	Additionally,
if the complaint relies on the contents of a document not physically
17
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210–11 (3d Cir. 2009).
18
Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007).
19
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192,
1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 11

6
attached to the complaint but whose authenticity is not in dispute, the
court may consider such document in its determination. 20 	However, the
court may not rely on any other part of the record when deciding a motion
to dismiss. 21
Finally, when reviewing a
pro se complaint, we are reminded that
such complaints are to be construed liberally, “so ‘as to do substantial
justice.’” 22 	We must apply the relevant law even if the
pro se plaintiff
does not mention it by name. 23
B. The Amended Complaint Should be Dismissed.
“As part of its general power to administer its docket, a district
court 	may 	dismiss 	a 	duplicative 	complaint.” 24 	Here, 	the 	plaintiff’s
amended complaint is nearly identical to the amended complaint filed in
his other civil action in this court. 25 	From what we can discern, that
20
See Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir.
2002).
21
Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261.
22
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(f)).
23
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing
Higgins v.
Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).
24
Fabics v. City of New Brunswick, 629 F. App’x 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2015).
25
See Docket No. 4:25-CV-1134.
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 11

7
amended complaint sets forth facts related to his political campaign and
includes defendant Matulewicz. 	In that action, the court dismissed the
amended complaint with prejudice. 	The matter is now on appeal with
the Third Circuit.26 	Accordingly, the amended complaint in this case
should be dismissed as duplicative.
C. The Claims Set Forth in the Initial Complaint Should also be
Dismissed. 27
Robinson’s initial complaint is fundamentally flawed in at least two
ways. First, we conclude his complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Second, we find that his claims are time-barred by
the two-year statute of limitations.
Robinson’s complaint asserts a civil conspiracy claim against the
defendants alleging they retaliated against him for exercising his First
Amendment rights in “running for public office and speaking on public
issues.” 28 	However, to prove a conspiracy claim under Section 1983, a
plaintiff must show “that persons acting under color of state law ‘reached
26
See Docket No. 25-3338.
27 Because the plaintiff’s amended complaint simply sought to add a
defendant and additional claims, the Court will proceed in screening the
claims set forth in the initial complaint.
28 Doc. 1 at 4.
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 7 of 11

8
an 	understanding’ 	to 	deprive 	him 	of 	his 	constitutional 	rights.” 29
“Generally, private actors do not act under color of state law, [and] thus
are not liable under Section 1983.”30
Here, it is apparent that Robinson attempts to assert claims against
private actors. Sample News is a private newspaper publisher that owns
and operates
The News-Item, which employs the individual defendants.
While there are certain instances where private actors may be treated as
state actors,31 Robinson’s assertion that the defendants acted under color
of law because they “regularly attend and cover Northumberland County
government” 32 news is unavailing. 	Accordingly, Robinson’s conspiracy
claim fails.
Moreover, state statutes of limitations for personal injury apply to
claims brought under Section 1983.33 	In Pennsylvania, this limitations
29
	Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 294 (3d Cir. 2018)
(quoting
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150–52 (1970)).
30
Luck v. Mount Airy No. 1, LLC, 901 F. Supp. 2d 547, 560 (M.D. Pa.
2012).
31
Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 646 (3d Cir. 2009);
Benn v. Universal
Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2004).
32 Doc. 1 at 3.
33
Garvin v. City of Phila., 354 F.3d 215, 220 (3d Cir. 2003).
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 8 of 11

9
period is two years from the date the cause of action accrued.34 	A cause
of action accrues “when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the
injury upon which [his] action is based.”35 A court is permitted to dispose
of Section 1983 claims at the motion to dismiss stage if it is apparent from
the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run. 36
Robinson filed this action on December 3, 2025. 	The newspaper
article complained of therein was published on February 27, 2019. 	This
article was undoubtedly known to Robinson at the time of its publishing,
as evinced by his claims that the article injured his reputation and
political campaign and that the defendants refused to cover Robinson’s
legitimate news. 	Moreover, it is beyond dispute that Robinson had the
requisite knowledge to pursue an action given his frequent appearance
in this Court. Accordingly, because Robinson filed this action more than
34 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524.
35
Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Phila., 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir.
1998).
36
Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing
Robinson
v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir. 2002)).
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 9 of 11

10
two years after he was aware of the facts underlying his claims, we
conclude his claims are barred by the statute of limitations.37
Finally, while we recognize that
pro se plaintiffs should generally
be permitted to amend their complaints, 38 this complaint is materially
flawed in several ways, and thus, we believe leave to amend would be
futile. Accordingly, we recommend that this complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED
that the plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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
37 Robinson seemingly asserts the statute of limitations was tolled under
the continuing wrong doctrine because his injuries “continue to this day.”
See Doc. 1 at 2-3. However, “[i]n applying the doctrine, this court focuses
on the affirmative acts of the defendant[,]” which Robinson fails to
mention.
	Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc., 142 F.3d at 599. Accordingly, the
continuing wrong doctrine is not applicable and Robinson’s claims are
time-barred.
38
See Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247,
253 (3d Cir. 2007);
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 10 of 11

11
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 23rd day of December 2025.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02306-KM Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 11 of 11