WARREN v. PA BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE et al
MEMORANDUM. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 8/17/16. 8/18/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN. (pr, ) (Main Document 6 replaced on 8/18/2016) (pr, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TERRY LAMONT WARREN
PA BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, et al.:
Plaintiff, an inmate, has filed a pro se civil rights
action against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
("Board"), the Secretary of the Board, a supervisor and parole
agent at the Lancaster County Board of Probation and Parole and
an assistant public defender.
He seeks to proceed in forma
For the following reasons, the Court will grant
plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915(e) (2) (B) (i).
Plaintiff alleges that he received a technical parole
violation, which he appealed to the Board.
by the Board and Secretary Barkley.
His appeal was denied
In his prayer for relief, in
addition to money damages, he is asking this Court to review the
State's decision to revoke his parole, and to intervene in his
ongoing criminal case.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As plaintiff has satisfied the criteria set forth in 28
1915, he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) applies.
requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if, among other
AUG 1 ~ 2016
CLERK OF COURT
things, it is frivolous.
A complaint is legally frivolous if it
is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory."
United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995).
is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his allegations
Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir.
"[T]o recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has
been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]"
U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512
(footnote and citation omitted).
Nothing in the complaint suggests that the revocation of
plaintiff's parole has been reversed or otherwise invalidated.
As success on plaintiff claims would necessarily demonstrate the
invalidity of his not-yet-invalidated sentence, the claims are
not cognizable under
173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006)
See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d
(Heck barred claim challenging
constitutionality of parole revocation decision) .
plaintiff's claims against his parole agent, Andrew Johnson, will
His claims against the supervisor at the Lancaster
County Board of Probation and Parole will also be dismissed
because plaintiff's complaint does not contain any reference to
this defendant, and there is no respondeat superior liability in
Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d
1077, 1082 (3d Cir. 1976).
Plaintiff's claims against the Board and Secretary
Barkley will be dismissed.
The Board is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity and is not a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C.
See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
(a state may not be sued in federal court pursuant
1983 and is not a "person" for purposes of that provision) ;
Goodman v. McVey, 428 F. App'x 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2011)
(claims against the Board were "prohibited by the
Secretary Barkley is entitled to quasi-
judicial immunity from plaintiff's claims because they are based
on acts she performed in connection with her adjudicatory duties
as Board Secretary.
(3d Cir. 1986)
See Harper v. Jeffries, 808 F.2d 281, 284
("No doubt can be entertained that probation
officers and Pennsylvania Parole Board members are entitled to
quasi-judicial immunity when engaged in adjudicatory duties."
A defense attorney, whether court-appointed or
privately retained, represents only his client, and not the
state, and cannot be sued under
454 U.S. 312 (1981).
Polk County v. Dodson,
Therefore, plaintiff's claims against Mary
Jean Glick, Esq. will be dismissed.
Finally, plaintiff is requesting that this court
intervene in his pending state case.
This Court, in deference to
the principles of comity and federalism, will not interfere in
the state criminal process absent a showing of irreparable
injury, a flagrant and patent violation of an express
constitutional prohibition, or other extraordinary circumstances
warranting equitable relief.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-
None of the facts alleged by plaintiff meet these
A district court should generally provide a pro se
plaintiff with leave to amend unless amendment would be
inequitable or futile.
See Grayson v. Mayyiew State Hosp., 293
F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
Here, amendment would be futile
because plaintiff cannot cure the above deficiencies in his
complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff will not be permitted to file
an amended complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's complaint is
An appropriate order follows.
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?