COVERT v. MENTAL HEALTH DEPART. CRIMINAL JUST. CENTER et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 5/9/16. 5/9/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF.(kw, )

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