TALBERT v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 2/3/16. 2/4/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES TALBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 15-1718

MEMORANDUM
STENGEL, J.

February 3, 2016

Pro se plaintiff, Charles Talbert, brings a § 1983, § 1985 and § 1986 action against
the City of Philadelphia, District Attorney Seth Williams, Assistant District Attorney
Tami Levin and Assistant District Attorney Adam Jackson. 1 Mr. Talbert claims that he
has a right to entrance into the witness protection program and that by denying him that
right the defendants have violated § 1983, § 1985 and § 1986. Both the City of
Philadelphia and the DA Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. For the reasons
discussed below, I will grant the City of Philadelphia and the DA Defendant’s motion to
dismiss.

1

I will collectively refer to District Attorney Seth Williams, Assistant District Attorney Tami Levin and Assistant
District Attorney Adam Jackson as “DA Defendants.”

1

I.

BACKGROUND
Mr. Talbert is an incarcerated individual who is currently detained at Philadelphia

Industrial Correctional Center. (Doc. No. 18 2 at ¶ 3). On August 7, 2015, Mr. Talbert
filed an amended complaint against the City of Philadelphia, Seth Williams, Tami Levin
and Adam Jackson. 3 (Id.). According to Mr. Talbert’s amended complaint, in 2000 or
early 2001, Mr. Talbert testified against Mr. Christopher Edge and Mr. Sergio Hyland in
a homicide prosecution brought by the DA’s Office. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9). Subsequently, Mr.
Talbert was placed into the DA’s Office’s witness-protection program by then victimwitness coordinator, Lelan Kent. (Id. at ¶ 10). On February 4, 2011, Mr. Talbert was
shot multiple times by Johnnie Simmons in retaliation for the testimony that Mr. Talbert
had provided against Mr. Edge and Mr. Hyland. (Id. at ¶ 11). Even after being shot, Mr.
Talbert was assaulted several times in retaliation for his testimony against Mr. Edge, Mr.
Hyland and Mr. Simmons. (Id. at ¶ 12).
Mr. Talbert alleges that detectives from the Philadelphia Northwest Detective
Division filed documents with the Victim Witness Coordinator and Victim Services
Director at the DA’s Office requesting that Mr. Talbert be relocated for his protection.
(Id. at ¶ 14). Mr. Talbert wrote to the District Attorney and spoke to the District Attorney
in person regarding his request for relocation. (Id. at ¶ 15). In response, the District

2

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
Mr. Talbert filed his original complaint on June 4, 2015. Mr. Talbert’s amended complaint includes all of the same
allegations as his original claim except Mr. Talbert includes a paragraph in his amended complaint stating: “The
City’ conduct and failure to establish or maintain a policy, practice or custom of monitoring, supervising and
training the office, including defendants r. Seth Williams, Adam Jackson and Tami Levin contributed to and
approximately caused the violation of plaintiffs rights under state and federal constitutions and laws of the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania and United States.” Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 22.

3

2

Attorney provided Mr. Talbert with the name of the Victim Services Director. (Id.)
Additionally, Mr. Talbert spoke with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Id. at ¶ 17).
Despite his many requests for relocation, Mr. Talbert has yet to be relocated. Mr.
Talbert states that he suffers “physical and mental injuries. . . severe mental anguish,
stress, extreme anxiety, migraine headaches, substantial lack of sleep and post traumatic
stress,” as a result of not being relocated. (Id. at ¶ 20). Mr. Talbert now seeks
compensatory and punitive damages in addition to injunctive relief.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted examines the legal
sufficiency of the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Following
the Supreme Court decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009), pleading standards in federal
actions have shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading,
requiring a plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible
claim for relief. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009).
While Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2), in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests,” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544, the plaintiff must provide “more than
labels and conclusions.” Byrne v. Cleveland Clinic, 684 F. Supp. 2d 641, 649 (E.D. Pa.
3

2010)(citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544). A facially plausible claim may not be
supported by conclusory allegations, but must allow the court “to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
However, a pro se complaint must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). A pro se
action “can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears ‘beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief.’” Jubilee v. Horn, 959 F.Supp. 276, 279 (E.D. Pa. 1997)(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S.
at 107).
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Section 1983 Claim

Mr. Talbert brings this action against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a private party may recover in an action against any person
acting under the color of state law who deprives the party of his or her constitutional
rights. The relevant text of § 1983 provides, in part:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen . . . or any other person . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured. . . .”
Section 1983 does not by itself confer substantive rights, but rather, provides a
remedy for redress when a constitutionally protected right has been violated. Oklahoma
City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)(citing Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140,
4

144 n.3 (1979)). Thus, in order to bring a successful claim for relief under § 1983, “a
plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant, acting under color of law, deprived him or her
of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.” Kaucher v. Cnty.
of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006).
Municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be based on the “respondeat
superior doctrine, but must be founded upon evidence that the government unit itself
supported a violation of constitutional rights.” Patterson v. City of Phila., No. 08-2140,
2009 WL 1259968, at *9 (E.D. Pa. May 1, 2009). Municipal liability will only attach
under § 1983 when “the execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by
its lawmakers or by those who edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official
policy, inflicts the injury.” Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436
U.S. 658, 694 (1978). A plaintiff can establish municipal liability under § 1983 by
pointing to either a policy or custom that has harmed them. Stewart v. Moll, 717
F.Supp.2d 454, 465 (E.D. Pa. 2010)(“The plaintiff must show that the municipality,
through one of its policymakers, affirmatively proclaimed the policy, or acquiesced in the
widespread custom, that cause the violation.”)(citations omitted). The plaintiff can show
that a policy existed “when a decisionmaker possess[ing] final authority to establish
municipal policy with respect to the action’ issues an official proclamation, policy or
edict.” Bielevicz v. Dubinon, 915 F.2d 845, 850 (3d Cir. 1990)(citing Andrews v. City of
Phila., 895 F.2d 1469, 1480 (3d Cir. 1990)). The plaintiff may establish custom “by
showing that a given course of conduct although not specifically endorsed or authorized
by law, is so well-settled and permanent as virtually to constitute law.” Id. When
5

arguing either custom or policy was the source of the plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff must
show “that an official who has the power to make policy is responsible for either the
affirmative proclamation of a policy or acquiescence in a well-settled custom.” Id.
1.

DA Defendants

There is no affirmative right to governmental protection under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc.
Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989). In other words, “nothing in the language of the Due
Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its
citizens against invasion by private actors.” Id. Two exceptions exist to this rule. Under
the special relationship exception, the Constitution does “impose[] upon the State
affirmative duties of care and protection with respect to particular individuals . . .when a
special relationship has been established because ‘the State takes a person into its custody
and hold him there against his will.” Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 167 (3d Cir.
2013)(citing Deshaney, 489 U.S. at 198-200). For example, courts have imposed liability
on prison officials where “a prisoner faces an objectively serious risk of harm and the
prison official acts with deliberate indifference towards the inmate’s safety.” Laughlin v.
Peck, No. 10-213, 2011 WL 6000596, *4 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 30 2011)(citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). However, courts have limited the special
relationship exception to those “state actors who are responsible for the
institutionalization of the plaintiff and the selection of the plaintiff’s housing.” Id.; see
D.N. ex rel. Nelson v. Snyder, 608 F.Supp.2d 615, 622-23 (M.D. Pa. 2009)(“The special

6

relationship theory places a burden upon state actors who maintain physical custody over
a plaintiff.”); Delrosario v. City of New York, No. 07-2027, 2010 WL 882990, *12
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2010)(holding that there is no legal authority “that requires prosecutors
to step into the shoes of prison officials and safeguard prisoners.”) . Courts have not
extended the special relationship exception to include the relationship between prosecutor
and prisoner. Laughlin, 2011 WL 6000596, at *5 (holding there to be no special
relationship between the ADA and the prisoner such that the ADA had a duty to
safeguard the plaintiff from potential abuse related to his testimony); Ying Jing Gan v.
City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 534 (2d Cir. 1993)(holding that there was no special
relationship between witness and ADA such that the ADA had an affirmative duty to
provide the witness protection); Delrosario, 2010 WL 882990 (stating that a prosecutor
has no affirmative duty to ensure the safety of a witness under the special relationship
exception).
Second, under the “state-created danger” theory of liability, a plaintiff can allege a
substantive due process violation under § 1983 by showing that the harm suffered at the
hands of third parties was a direct result of state action. Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199
(3d Cir. 1996). A state actor may be held liable under the state-created danger theory if
the plaintiff can demonstrate that:
(1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly
direct; (2) the state actor acted with a degree of culpability
that shocks the conscience; (3) a relationship between the
state and the plaintiff existed such that the plaintiff was a
foreseeable victim of the defendant’s acts, or a member of a
discrete class of persons subjected to the potential harm
7

brought about by the state’s actions, as opposed to a member
of the public in general; and (4) a state actor affirmatively
used his or her authority in a way that created a danger to the
citizen or that rendered the citizen more vulnerable to danger
than had the state not acted at all.
Bright v. Westmoreland County, 443 F.3d 276, 281 (3d Cir. 2006). Importantly,
“liability under the state-created danger theory is predicated upon the states’ affirmative
acts which work to the plaintiffs’ detriments in terms of exposure to danger.” Id. at 282
(citing D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vo. Tech. School, 972 F.2d 1364, 1374 (3d
Cir. 1992)).
In order for Mr. Talbert to demonstrate a successful claim for relief under § 1983,
he must allege that the DA Defendants, acting under the color of law, deprived him of a
right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Mr. Talbert’s amended
complaint alleges that the DA Defendants deprived him of the right to be placed in the
witness protection program and thus, to be protected from retaliation for the testimony he
gave against Mr. Hyland, Mr. Edge and Mr. Simmons. Furthermore, Mr. Talbert alleges
that the DA Defendants deprived him of the equal protection of the law since another
witness who testified against Mr. Simmons was placed in the witness protection program
and Mr. Talbert was not. The law is clear that unless Mr. Talbert can demonstrate that
either that a special relationship between himself and the DA Defendants existed or that
the potential harm suffered at the hands of third parties is a direct result of an action taken
by the DA Defendants, Mr. Talbert does not have a constitutional right to governmental

8

protection from private actors and therefore, his complaint must be dismissed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Courts have been clear that the special relationship exception is limited to “state
actors who are responsible for the institutionalization of the plaintiff and the selection of
the plaintiff’s housing.” Laughlin, 2011 WL 6000596, at *4; Snyder, 608 F.Supp.2d at
622-23 (“The special relationship theory places a burden upon state actors who maintain
physical custody over a plaintiff.”). While courts have interpreted the special relationship
exception to impose an affirmative duty to safeguard prisoners on prison officials who
maintain a custodial relationship with prisoners, I find no reason why this affirmative
duty should extend to prosecutors. A prosecutor does not have physical custody over a
detained witness nor is there any recognized duty for the prosecutors “to step into the
shoes of prison officials and safeguard prisoners.” Delrosario, 2010 WL 882990, at *12.
Therefore, I find that no special relationship exists here such that the DA Defendants
have a constitutional duty to protect Mr. Talbert and allow him access to the witness
protection program.
Mr. Talbert may also demonstrate a constitutional right to government protection
if he can meet the elements of the state-created danger theory. Mr. Talbert’s claim is
that the DA Defendants had a duty to protect him and they breached that duty by failing
to allow him access into the witness protection program. The state-created danger theory
requires Mr. Talbert to show that “a state actor affirmatively used his or her authority in a
way that created a danger to the citizen or that rendered the citizen more vulnerable to

9

danger than had the state not acted at all.” Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418,
431 (3d Cir. 2006)(holding that in order to meet the state-created danger standard “[t]here
must be a direct causal relationship between the affirmative act of the state and plaintiff’s
harm.”). Mr. Talbert’s complaint does not reveal an affirmative exercise of authority by
the DA Defendants, but rather alleges a failure of the DA Defendants to provide
protection. Rodriquez v. City of Phila., 350 Fed.App’x 710, 713 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating
that “a plaintiff must show more than the government’s ‘failure to prevent’ an injury in
order to prevail on a state-created danger claim.”)(citations omitted). The allegations that
the DA Defendants failed to provide protection against retaliation by denying Mr. Talbert
access into the witness protection program is insufficient to meet the fourth essential
element of the state-created danger theory.
Mr. Talbert has not demonstrated either that a special relationship exists between
the DA Defendants and himself, or that the DA Defendant took an affirmative action
which created a danger to him. Because neither the special relationship nor the statecreated danger exceptions apply in this case, I find that Mr. Talbert has no constitutional
right to government protection from harm at the hands of third parties. Accordingly, I
find that Mr. Talbert’s § 1983 claim against the DA Defendants is dismissed with
prejudice. 4

4

Mr. Talbert does not clarify whether he brings his claims against the DA Defendants in their official or
individual capacities. I have addressed Mr. Talbert’s claims against the DA Defendants in their official capacities
above. To the extent that Mr. Talbert brings his claims against the DA Defendants in their individual capacities, I
find that the DA Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
“When a public official’s actions give rise to a § 1983 claim, the privilege of qualified immunity can serve
as a shield from civil suit in certain circumstances.” Williams v. Bitner, 455 F.3d 186, 190 (3d Cir. 2006).
Qualified immunity will only shield officials from § 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

10

2.

City of Philadelphia

Mr. Talbert does not have a constitutional right to governmental protection from
harm at the hands of third parties and therefore his § 1983 claim against the City of
Philadelphia is subject to dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). However,
assuming arguendo that Mr. Talbert could demonstrate a constitutional right to
governmental protection, his § 1983 claim against the City of Philadelphia would still fail
as he has not alleged a plausible claim to relief. Mr. Talbert pleads his § 1983 Monell
claim against the City of Philadelphia by stating: “[t]he city’ [sic] conduct and failure to
establish or maintain a policy, practice or custom of monitoring, supervising and training
the office, including defendants R. Seth Williams, Adam Jackson and Tami Levin
contributed to and approximately caused the violation of plaintiffs [sic] rights under state
and federal constitutions and laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and United
States.” Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 22. Mr. Talbert provides no other factual allegations
relating to the City, or any policy, practice or custom that caused the alleged deprivation
of his constitutional rights. The City of Philadelphia argues that Mr. Talbert’s amended
complaint fails to meet pleading standards because it lacks any actual facts that support a
claim that there is a municipal policy or custom at issue and because Mr. Talbert has not

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Therefore, in order to overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff
must allege facts showing that the defendant’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right
was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. Bitner, 455 F.3d at 190.
Mr. Talbert’s amended complaint alleges a constitutional right to governmental protection from violence at
the hands of third parties. As I have discussed above, Mr. Talbert does not have a constitutional right to
governmental protection from harm at the hands of third parties as his claim does not fall within the scope of the
special relationship or the state-created danger exception. Thus, Mr. Talbert has failed to make out a constitutional
violation and the DA Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that Mr. Talbert brings his claims
against them in an individual capacity.

11

identified a specific policy maker involved in the formation of a custom or policy. I
agree. Mr. Talbert’s claims against the City of Philadelphia cannot survive a motion to
dismiss based on the formulaic recitation of the elements of a § 1983 Monell claim. See
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). Without further factual
enhancement, Mr. Talbert’s allegation is simply a naked assertion that he suffered harm
at the hands of the City of Philadelphia which is not sufficient to state a plausible claim
for relief. Therefore, even if Mr. Talbert was able to demonstrate a constitutional right to
governmental protection, I still find that Mr. Talbert’s amended complaint is factually
insufficient and I grant the City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss.
B.

Section 1985 and Section 1986 Claims

Section 1985 provides a cause of action where two or more “persons” conspire to
interfere with an individual’s civil rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1985. To state a claim under
§1985, the plaintiff must allege:
(1) a conspiracy; (2) that the conspiracy is motivated by racial
or class based invidiously discriminatory animus; (3) the
conspiracy deprived the plaintiff of the equal protection of the
law; (4) that the conspirators committed some act in
furtherance of the conspiracy; and (5) the plaintiff was injured
in his person or property or deprived of a right or privilege as
a United States Citizen.

12

Scott v. Township of Bristol, No. 90-1412, 1990 WL 178556, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14,
1990). Section 1986 “constitutes an additional safeguard for those rights protected under
42 U.S.C. § 1985 . . . .” 5 42 U.S.C. § 1986. A § 1986 plaintiff must demonstrate:
(1) the defendant had actual knowledge of a § 1985
conspiracy, (2) the defendant had the power to prevent or aid
in preventing the commission of a § 1985 violation, (3) the
defendant neglected or refused to prevent a § 1985
conspiracy, and (4) a wrongful act was committed.
Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290, 1295 (3d Cir. 1994). “Because transgressions of §
1986 by definition depend on a preexisting violation of § 1985, if the claimant does not
set forth a cause of action under the latter, its claim under the former necessarily must fail
also.” Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F.2d 680, 696 (3d Cir. 1980). To survive a
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint alleging a civil rights conspiracy should identify
with particularity the conduct violating plaintiffs’ rights, the time and place of these
actions, and the people responsible therefor.” DeJohn v. Temple University, No. 06-778,
2006 WL 2623274, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2006).
The only allegation that Mr. Talbert makes in his amended complaint concerning a
conspiracy is “ [b]y conspiring as a whole to deprive plaintiff equal protection of the laws
and of equal privileges to keep plaintiff safe; and by all defendants having knowledge of
5

42 U.S.C. § 1986 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be
done, and mentions in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and
having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same,
neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to
the party injured, or his legal representative, for all damages caused by such
wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented;
and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1986.

13

the wrongs conspired by the defendants and having power to prevent or cause prevention
of the wrongs but neglected and refused to do, caused plaintiff physical and mental
injuries . . .” Given the discussion concerning Mr. Talbert’s § 1983 claim, I believe that
it is clear that Mr. Talbert has already failed the fifth prong for demonstrating a §1985
claim in that governmental protection from harm at the hands of third parties is not a right
or privilege that Mr. Talbert is entitled to. However, even assuming arguendo that it is a
right or privilege that Mr. Talbert is entitled to, Mr. Talbert has failed to sufficiently
allege his § 1985 action. His broad allegation of conspiracy does not specifically refer to
any unlawful agreement that the defendants entered into, the particular conduct that
violated Mr. Talbert’s rights or any racial or class based invidiously discriminatory
animus. Mr. Talbert’s allegation does not provide sufficient facts to allow this Court to
plausibly determine that the defendants formally agreed to violate his rights by denying
him access to the witness protection program. Accordingly, I dismiss Mr. Talbert’s §
1985 claim and the dismissal of Mr. Talbert’s §1985 claim necessarily requires dismissal
of his §1986 claim.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Mr. Talbert’s amended complaint fails to establish a plausible claim for relief. Mr.

Talbert does not have a constitutional right to governmental protection from harm at the
hands of third parties. Furthermore, even if Mr. Talbert did have a constitutional right to
governmental protection, Mr. Talbert has failed to provide sufficient factual allegations
regarding any policy or practice that the City of Philadelphia employed which caused him

14

this injury and any conspiracy to violate his rights which the defendants entered into.
Therefore, I grant both the City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss and the DA
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Additionally, given the finding that Mr. Talbert does not
have a constitutional right to governmental protection, I find that leave to amend would
be futile. 6 Accordingly, I find that Mr. Talbert’s amended complaint naming the City of
Philadelphia, District Attorney R. Seth Williams, Assistant District Attorney Tami Levin
and Assistant District Attorney Adam Jackson is dismissed with prejudice.
An appropriate Order follows.

6

“[I]f a complaint is vulnerable to 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an
amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d Cir. 2008).
“An amendment is futile if the amended complaint cannot withstand a renewed motion to dismiss.” Harris v.
Corbett, No. 12-01, 2014 WL 580150, *8 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014)(citing Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d
Cir. 2000)). Both pro se plaintiffs and plaintiffs represented by experienced counsel are subject to these principles.
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).

15