GUY v. ERDOS et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 8/15/16. 8/16/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )

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

\LED

CIVIL ACTION

UG 1 5 2.0\6

v.
LU .

NO. 16-3683

MICHAEL ERDOS, et al.

I

MEMORANDUM

AUGUST /S, 2011

O'NEILL, J.

Plaintiff Guy Green, a prisoner incarcerated at the Philadelphia Detention Center, brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his allegation that the defendants have
incorrectly calculated his sentence, causing his wrongful incarceration. 1 He seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss his complaint with prejudice as legally frivolous, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
I.

FACTS

On May 24, 2016, Judge Michael Erdos of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
sentenced plaintiff to serve six to twenty-three months of incarceration for violating his
probation. Commonwealth v. Green, Docket No. CP-51-CR-0012285-2007. The Court
understands plaintiff to be alleging that his sentence is unconstitutional because he had already
served his maximum sentence. Accordingly, he initiated this civil action against Judge Erdos,
Judge Thomas Dempsey, Byron Cotter of the Philadelphia Defender Association, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Prison System, and "Adult Probation and

1

Although plaintiff identifies himself as Green Guy in the caption of the complaint, his prison
account statement and the dockets for his criminal cases reflect that his name is Guy Green.
1

v. CHIN, Interim Cler

ByJUI_ _ _o.ep.Cle

Parole Department of Phila. PA." Plaintiff seeks review of his state court records and monet
damages for "false imprisonment and double jeopardy." (Compl. if V.)

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is
incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action.2 Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if it 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), and is legally baseless if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legl
!

theory." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). As plaintiff is
proceeding prose, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d
333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).

III.

DISCUSSION

"[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical
,I

imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release

'I
I

i

or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.I'
See Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff is
seeking release from imprisonment due to the alleged miscalculation of his sentence, he must fi I
a petition for habeas corpus after exhausting state remedies.
Additionally, "to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonmel
or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence
invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direc,
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make sud
2

However, as plaintiff is a prisoner, he will be obligated to pay the filing fee in installments in
accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
2

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.1'
Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (footnote and citation omitted). Here, plainti ·
seeks damages for unconstitutional imprisonment resulting from the alleged miscalculation of
the time he spent on probation. However, the sentence he is challenging has not been invalidat tl
or otherwise called into question. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims are not cognizable in a civil
rights action because success on those claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity ofh
sentence. 3 See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (applying Heck to a
claim of unlawful detention based on parole board decision).

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint as legally frivolous,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He will not be given leave to amend because
amendment would be futile. An appropriate order follows, which shall be docketed separately.

3

There are other reasons why plaintiffs claims lack merit. First, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the Adult Probation and Parole Department are entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity and, in any event, are not "persons" for purposes of§ 1983. See Will v.
Mich. Dep 't ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989); Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426
F.3d 233, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). Second, Judges Erdos and Dempsey are absolutely immune from
claims based on acts they took in their judicial capacity, including sentencing plaintiff in his
criminal case. See Gallas v. Supreme Court ofPa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000). Third,
public defenders are not state actors subject to liability under§ 1983 by virtue of their
representation of criminal defendants. See Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981 ).
Finally, the Philadelphia Prison System is not an entity separate from the City that is subject to
suit and, in any event, plaintiff has not stated a basis for municipal liability here. See 53 Pa.
Cons. Stat.§ 16257; Monell v. Dep't ofSoc. Servs. ofNY, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
3