PEELE v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NORMA L. SHAPIRO ON 4/8/15. 4/9/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRONE PEELE
v.
PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM,
C.F.C.F.; WARDEN DELANEY

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 12-4877

NORMA L. SHAPIRO, J.

April 8, 2015
MEMORANDUM

Defendant Philadelphia Prison System has moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff
alleges that during his incarceration within the Philadelphia Prison System he was housed in
overcrowded cells. Plaintiff also makes claims related to several alleged incidents occurring during
his incarceration. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Counsel for
the Philadelphia Prison System filed a motion to dismiss, deemed moot by the filing of an amended
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a joint “motion for a jury trial” and “memorandum of law in
opposition to defendant(s) motion to dismiss.”1
By order of November 19, 2014, all outstanding motions were stayed pending settlement
discussions. A settlement conference was held and plaintiff declined the settlement offer. On
January 20, 2015, the court lifted its stay of all outstanding motions, added Warden Delaney as a
defendant to the caption of the complaint, ordered summons issued, and directed service of the
summons and the complaint made on Warden Delaney by the U.S. Marshal.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Tyrone Peele (“Peele”) filed a complaint stating claims against the Philadelphia

1

Peele requested an extension of time to respond to defendant’s amended motion to dismiss. The court
granted him an extension. Peele filed his response within the time granted.

Prison System and Warden Delaney.2 Peele alleges that during his incarceration in the Philadelphia
Prison System he was placed in a three man cell (a two person cell with a plastic boat on the floor
for a third inmate). He also alleges that he was placed in a four man cell with no window. He
alleges he contracted lice, had no light in his cell from December 24 to December 29, 2011, received
inadequate medical care for a “degenerative disc disease,” and was fined for a window he did not
crack.
Plaintiff filed a joint “motion for a jury trial” and “memorandum of law in opposition to
defendant(s) motion to dismiss.” This filing is unclear and comprised mostly of legal citations and
conclusions. It is also difficult to read the print. In response to the Philadelphia Prison System
contention that it is not a “person” under Section 1983, plaintiff states: “Warden (Delaney)...is
“now”...named: (Lead-defendant): in this Civil Action No.#12-4877.” Counsel for Warden Delaney
filed a separate motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
II.

DISCUSSION
Section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of rights established by the Constitution or

federal law. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant,
acting under color of state law, deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States. Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006). A plaintiff can only
bring Section 1983 claims against “persons.” See, e.g., Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). If a plaintiff brings suit against individual defendants, personal
wrongdoing must be shown “through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and
acquiescence.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff names the Philadelphia Prison System and Warden Delaney as defendants in this

2

W arden Delaney was added to the caption of the complaint by order of January 20, 2015.
-2-

action.

The Philadelphia Prison System’s motion to dismiss must be granted because the

Philadelphia Prison System is not a “proper party” or a “person” under Section 1983. Jackson v. City
of Erie Police Dep’t, 2014 WL 2783962, at *2 n.2 (3d Cir. 2014); see also Mitchell v. Chester
County Farms Prison, 426 F. Supp. 271 (E.D. Pa. 1976).
III.

CONCLUSION
The Philadelphia Prison System’s amended motion to dismiss is granted. An appropriate

order follows.

-3-