PITTMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 12/22/14. 12/22/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

GABRIEL PITTMAN

Fil.ED

v.

MEMORANDUM

-

DECEMBER 1.. 7-.J'llf/

SLOMSKY, J.

DEC 2 2 2014

NO. 14-7022

PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, et al.:

~ICHAEL L i(UNZ, Clerk
Y--_Dep. Clerk

'

2014

Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights lawsuit in which he is alleging that certain
provisions of Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA")
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541,

et~.,

violate his constitutional rights.

In addition to money damages, plaintiff is requesting declaratory
and injunctive .relief.
For the following reasons, plaintiff's claims will be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (i).
In order to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state
law deprived him of his constitutional rights.
487 U.S. 42

(1988).

West v.Atkins,

There are no allegations in the complaint

that would allow this Court to find that plaintiff's
constitutional rights have been violated by the enactment and
enforcement of the provisions of the PCRA.
Plaintiff alleges that the Pennsylvania Legislature did not
have the authority to enact 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543 (a) (2) (viii),
which deals with eligibility for relief under the PCRA, and 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9545 (b) (1) and (2), which set time limits to file
PCRA actions.

However, the United States

Supr~me

Court has said

the states are,

~free

to impose procedural bars to restrict

repeated returns to state court for post-conviction proceedings."
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000).
Plaintiff filed four

(4) petitions for relief under the PCRA

which were dismissed as jurisdictionally barred pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.A.

§

9545(b) (1).

The one-year limitations period which

precludes the consideration of untimely PCRA petitions is a
jurisdictional rule.

See Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547

(1988); Whitney v. Horn, 280 F.3d 240, 251 (3d. Cir. 2002).
A district court should generally provide a pro se plaintiff
with leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile.

See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114

(3d Cir. 2002).

Here, plaintiff will not be given leave to amend

because amendment would be futile, as he cannot cure the above
deficiencies in his complaint.