J.C. v. FORD et al

Filing 6

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED AS UNCONTESTED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 1/25/2016. 1/25/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(ahf)

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

CIVIL ACTION

J.C.,
Plaintiff,

No. 15-4745

v.
NICHOLAS FORD et. al,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This 25th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
and having received no response from Plaintiff, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED AS UNCONTESTED pursuant to Local Rule 7.l(c).
The Court further observes Plaintiff's Complaints fails to state a plausible claim for relief
as pleaded under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). All
Defendants are employees of the Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Department. The
Complaint avers that Defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
in what appears to be the ordinary course of supervision by probation officers, including
performing urine tests and routine home visits. It is hard to fathom how state actors fulfilling
their job duties could be held liable for civil rights violations. Defendants assert a variety of
defenses, including Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult
Prob. & Parole, 551 F.3d 193, 198 (3d Cir. 2008) ("Pennsylvania's judicial districts, including
their probation and parole departments, are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.").
Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires the Court to "dismiss the case at any
time ifthe court determines that ... [the action] is frivolous." A complaint is frivolous if it
"lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
1

Plaintiff's action is legally baseless if "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory."
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). "A factual frivolousness finding is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible."
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
In addition to the compelling defenses raised in Defendants' Motion, I find that Plaintiff's
Complaint is frivolous for lacking an arguable basis in law. Perhaps indicative of the plausibility
of the claims asserted, Plaintiff begins his Complaint by plainly threatening to initiate baseless
future litigation:
Plaintiff-victim is J.C. At all times by anyone Plaintiff [sic] to be referred to as
J.C., Mr. C., or simply plaintiff, but nothing else. If someone ever uses Plaintiff's
alleged name, they will be sued directly, no matter who they are, or what they are
purporting to be. Plus in general there will be an additional 13 more suits in the
next 25 years as well.
Compl.

at~

3. Plaintiff further pleads:

If anybody starts to sneeze somewhere in my direction, it will be in connection to
this and the next suit will be 1,000,000 dollars. If I see the word Heck anywhere
at all, or any phony attempt at confusion about what this suit is about, what it
involves and doesn't involve, there is going to be an additional 12 suits in the next
24 years. If any facts of this complaint do not appear accurately in any filing by
others including one labeled an opinion there is going to be 13 more suits in the
next 25 years. If any state claims are ignored, acting like they don't exist or are
not part of this case there will be 4 more suits in the next 8 years. If the City
pays/hires for purported counsel in this case there will be an additional 3 more
suits in the next 6 years. They have absolutely no authority anywhere to do such
a thing, if they did there would be one other case, one other victim, however there
is not. The City is bankrupt, the last thing they need to be doing is paying out
costly legal fees as dirty work for a non-entity.

Furthermore, the facts alleged "rise to the level of the irrational" and "wholly incredible."
Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Perhaps exemplifying the irrational and wholly incredible nature of the
allegations and requested relief, at the conclusion of the Complaint, Plaintiff requests that
Defendant Ford be forced "to go through intensive inpatient mental health treatment including all
2

the medication he needs, then if [sic] should be released, then intensive outpatient including
continuation of the medication. Note, Plaintiff isn't big on agreements, but he would agree to
have status hearings on Ford's cooperation and level of success in treatment." Finally, Plaintiff
attaches Defendant Ford's alleged "Pre Judgment Investigation," which includes a mental health
evaluation performed by Plaintiff ("Dr. J.C.") and allegedly "authorized by [Defendant's] illegal,
out of control and rights violating behavior." Compl. at Exhibit D. The Evaluative Summary
section of Plaintiffs Pre Judgment Investigation of Defendant Ford reads,
Nick, 27, awaits justice here on his latest crimes against just one of many
of his victims .... He did nothing special academically, [sic] Employment wise
he is a joke ... It seems interesting that a man that should either be in jail or
committed for mental health treatment is still trying to continue his crimes,
spending his limited resources torturing innocent victims, and trying to jail them.
In term of punishment and treatment for this individual, the current mental
health report is included in this reported. As was stated in the evaluation, Nick
needs to be put in jail and then lengthy probation or involuntarily committed for
an indefinite period of time, followed by intensive psychiatric treatment for a
period of 15 years.
I have Nick's p.s.i. on cd rom and hard copy as well, if anyone needs a
copy of it just ask.
Dr. J.C.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

4~~1.i

Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Court Judge

3