WILMER v. ABINGTON TOWNSHIP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONTISSA WILMER, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-CV-5775
:
ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, 	:
Defendant. 	:
MEMORANDUM
PEREZ, J. 	OCTOBER 16, 2026
Pro se Plaintiff Dontissa Wilmer brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Abington Township. She also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the
following reasons, the Court will grant Wilmer leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
her Complaint.
I. 	FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1
Wilmer’s allegations concern her 2021 Black Chevrolet Silverado Trail Boss pickup
truck. On August 5, 2024, she took the truck to the dealership because the seat was heated even
though the truck is not equipped with heated seats. (Compl. at 4.) She says that her vehicle was
not serviced during that visit. (Id.) On August 11, 2024, she parked her car in the emergency
department parking lot for Holy Redeemer Hospital. When she was discharged approximately
two hours later, she observed that some of the personal items inside the vehicle had been moved.
(Id.) On August 12, 2024, she reported this incident to the Holy Redeemer Security Operations
1 The facts set forth in this Memorandum are taken from Wilmer’s Complaint (ECF No.
2). The Court adopts the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing
system.
Case 2:26-cv-05775-MRP Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Manager, Jasmine, who stated that Abington Police Officer James Dwyer would investigate the
matter. (Id.) On that day she also had a medical appointment at the hospital and parked in the
handicap parking section. (Id.) When she returned to the truck after about four hours, at 2:15
p.m., “the interior was emitting an extreme heat and all seats were hot to the touch.” (Id.) She
observed an unknown almond-colored substance on the driver’s side door jamb and inside all
four-door jamb locking mechanisms. (Id. at 5.) The passenger-side fuse box cover was ajar at
the top and bottom. (Id.) Police Officer James Dwyer arrived at 3:15 p.m. and Wilmer showed
him the substance and the fuse box. (Id.) Dwyer opined that it was dealership lubricant and did
not process the car for fingerprints or take chemical samples. (Id.) Wilmer states she asked
Dwyer to help remove the fuse cover and noticed that it was not snapped into place. (Id.)
Wilmer asked Dwyer several times to write a police report, and he agreed. (Id.) Dwyer left a
voice mail for Wilmer later that day providing a police report number of 24-033767. (Id.)
Wilmer recalls seeing a grey van and a burgundy car in the vicinity of the medical building and
lot, both of which she claims to have previously observed following her. (Id.)
On August 13, 2024, she visited the Abington Police Station to update her report because
she had experienced severe itching from touching the unknown substance. (Id. at 6.) A police
officer told her the report would be updated, and apparently told her she could obtain a copy of
the report but that she would have to return in the morning because the records person had left
for the day. (Id.) When she returned another day, she was informed that the report was
unavailable due to an ongoing investigation. (Id.) Later that day, Dwyer told her the report was
complete, and that the police department provides reference numbers rather than physical copies
of reports to citizens. (Id.) Wilmer contacted several entities at Jefferson Health and the hospital
concerning the alleged vandalism, but was not able to obtain a copy of the security report. (Id. at
Case 2:26-cv-05775-MRP Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 6

3
6-7, 9.) 	She was also informed by the police department that the police report was unavailable
due to an ongoing investigation when she made an online request. (Id. at 8.) On September 4,
2024, she filed a digital Citizen Complaint form against Officer Dwyer through the police
department’s online portal. (Id. at 11.)
She reached out with her concerns to upper management of the police department,
security personnel and management at the Hospital, and various municipal officials, including
Ward Commissioner Ayanna Laney-Martin, Abington Township Commissioner Jeffrey Browne,
and Board of Commissioners President Thomas Hecker. (Id. at 9-17.) Wilmer states that she
also contacted the Montgomery County Magisterial District Court. (Id. at 10.) She filed a state
court action in July 2025, Wilmer v. Abington Township, No. 2025-18755 (C.P. Montgomery).
She reports that the Court of Common Pleas denied her motion to compel compliance on August
4, 2026. (Id. at 18.)
Wilmer filed a civil action in this Court on August 11, 2026, alleging violations of her
equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 2, 19.) As injuries, she states
that she sustained physical injuries to her hands, damage to her truck, and “ongoing physical
safety vulnerabilities” because of the alleged withholding of unredacted law enforcement files.
(Id. at 19.) Wilmer seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief. (Id.)
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will grant Wilmer leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that
she is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to screen the Complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from an immune defendant.
Case 2:26-cv-05775-MRP Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Furthermore, the Court must dismiss the Complaint if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); see also Grp. Against Smog & Pollution, Inc. v.
Shenango, Inc., 810 F.3d 116, 122 n.6 (3d Cir. 2016) (explaining that “an objection to subject
matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time [and] a court may raise jurisdictional issues sua
sponte”). A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir.
2015) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its
existence.”) (citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006)).
“Jurisdictional [issues] . . . may be raised at any time and courts have a duty to consider them sua
sponte.” Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152, 157 (2023) (internal quotations omitted). In
assessing the Complaint, the Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe a pro se
litigant’s pleadings. See Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
III. 	DISCUSSION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). For this reason, “most cases belong in state court.” Degennaro
v. Grabelle, No. 21-1536, 2021 WL 5445809, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021). A plaintiff bringing
a lawsuit in federal court has an obligation to show the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). If a court determines at any time that federal jurisdiction is lacking, the
court must dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Cases that can be heard in federal court
include cases based on federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”), see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and
cases in which the plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy is at least $75,000 (“diversity jurisdiction”), see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Case 2:26-cv-05775-MRP Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Wilmer attempts to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
by using the Court’s form complaint for a plaintiff alleging a civil rights violation and asserting
an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Comp. at 2.) However, her allegations do
not state a plausible claim within the Court’s jurisdiction. “Wholly insubstantial” claims are
insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction, even if they purport to be predicated on a
federal statute. Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45 (2015) (“We have long distinguished
between failing to raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes . . . and failing
to state a claim for relief on the merits; only ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous’ claims implicate
the former.”) (citation modified); Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1408-09
(3d Cir. 1991) (dismissal of claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proper “when the
claim clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction
or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous” (citation modified)). The factual scenario described in
the Complaint as the basis for Wilmer’s claims—alleged vandalism to her vehicle and the
unavailability of an apparent police report—does not raise a substantial federal question for
jurisdictional purposes. Rose v. Husenaj, 708 F. App’x 57, 60 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
(concluding that civil rights claims were insufficiently substantial to invoke federal question
jurisdiction because “Rose’s conclusory reference to ‘civil rights’ does not convert his tort
claims against non-state actors into constitutional claims”); Yoder v. Morrow, 671 F. App’x 27,
29 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because “[a]lthough Yoder’s complaint purported to rely on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, her allegations do
not actually implicate that federal statute”). Accordingly, the Court may not exercise jurisdiction
under § 1331. 2
2 Nor is diversity jurisdiction present.
Case 2:26-cv-05775-MRP Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Wilmer leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss her Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court concludes
that further amendment would be futile under the circumstances of this case, but notes that the
dismissal is without prejudice to Wilmer’s pursuing her claims in state court, where federal
jurisdiction will not be an issue. 3 See N.J. Physicians, Inc. v. President of U.S., 653 F.3d 234,
241 n.8 (3d Cir. 2011) (explaining that dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are “by
definition without prejudice” (citation omitted)). A dismissal Order follows, which shall be
docketed separately. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
BY THE COURT:
MIA R. PEREZ, J.
3 The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Wilmer’s claims.
Case 2:26-cv-05775-MRP Document 6 Filed 10/16/26 Page 6 of 6