Filing 2


Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DONTA COVERT v. CIVIL ACTION FILEP MAY - 9 2Q16 . MENTAL HEALTH DEPARtli;HAELE.KUNZ,p!erk CRIMINAL JUST. CENTE~Ye+al. D~pClerk NO. 16-2125 MEMORANDUM O'NEILL,J. MAY <f ,2016 Plaintiff Donta Covert brings civil rights claims, apparently pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the "Mental Health Depart. Criminal Just. Center," "C.F.C.F. Correction Facility," "C.J.C. Criminal Justice Center," Mercy Mental Health Crisis, and Carrie Jordan. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court will grant. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if "the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). Furthermore, as plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss his complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). 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), and is legally baseless if "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). 1 To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id Additionally, the Court may dismiss claims based on an affirmative defense ifthe affirmative defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. See Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 459 (3d Cir. 2013). As plaintiff is proceeding prose, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). The factual basis for plaintiffs claims is unclear. As best as the Court can discern, plaintiffs claims are based on events that occurred between March 5, 2012 and April 11, 2012, in the course of a criminal proceeding against him. His claims appear to be based in part on possible deficiencies in a court-ordered mental health evaluation. Pennsylvania's two-year statute oflimitations applies to plaintiffs claims. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524; Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). As it appears that plaintiffs claims accrued in 2012, his claims are untimely because he did not file this civil action until May 3, 2016, more than two years later. Furthermore, to the extent plaintiff is suing the Criminal Justice Center and departments of state courts, his claims are legally baseless because state courts and their components are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and are not "persons" for purposes of§ 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep't ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989); Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 551F.3d193, 198 (3d Cir. 2008). Nor are county prisons such as the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility "persons" for purposes of§ 1983. See Lenhart v. Pennsylvania, 528 F. App'x 111, 114 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Regan v. Upper Darby Twp., Civ. A. No. 06-1686, 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009). Additionally, none of 2 plaintiffs allegations plausibly support a claim that any of the defendants violated plaintiffs constitutional rights. Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint in this action and his filings in other actions, the Court concludes that amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002). An appropriate order follows, which shall be docketed separately. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?