PRICE v. SUHR et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 6/22/16. 6/23/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PLAINTIFF AND COPY TO LEGAL.(jaa, ) Modified on 6/23/2016 (jaa, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MAURICE M. PRICE
v.
HANNAH R. SUHR, ESQ., et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 16-2446

M E M O R A N D U M
PAPPERT, J.

JUNE

22 , 2016

Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights lawsuit against a private attorney, her client and the
Redline Auto Group.

He alleges that the defendants conspired to

steal his company vehicle and refused to return it to him.
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 suit 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 plaintiff’s

complaint that would allow the Court to find that any of the
defendants is a state actor.
Furthermore, it appears that plaintiff is also attempting to
bring a criminal case against the defendants.

A private citizen

does not have a judicially cognizable interest in the criminal
prosecution or nonprosecution of another.

Linda R.S. v. Richard

D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973).
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.

/s/ Gerald J. Pappert