PRICE v. SUHR et al
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
HANNAH R. SUHR, ESQ., et al.
M E M O R A N D U M
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
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
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?