Eakle v. Johnson et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM (Attachments: # 1 R&R)(eo, )

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLIE EAKLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

ROBERT JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:11-CV-2384

(Judge Jones)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I.

Statement of Facts and of the Case

The plaintiff, a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se, commenced this action
by filing a complaint on December 28, 2011. (Doc. 1) Eakle’s complaint names
seven defendants, and contained a 46-paragraph recital of various grievances lodged
by Eakle with prison officials concerning his medical care, the loss of property from
his cell, his treatment at the hands of fellow inmates, and the refusal of state officials
to bring criminal charges on his behalf against those that Eakle believes have
mistreated him.(Id.)
The factual narrative set forth in Eakle’s complaint was notable in one respect:
It dealt entirely with events which occurred in the remote past. Indeed, the factual

1

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 14

narrative set forth in Eakle’s December 28, 2011, complaint began in February of
2006 and concluded in September of 2009.(Id.) Thus, Eakle’s complaint is based
entirely upon events which are more than two years old, and which are in many
instances nearly six years old. On the basis of these dated claims, Eakle’s complaint
sought wide-ranging injunctive relief and damages totaling $8.9 million.
Along with this complaint, Eakle has filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 2) For the reasons set forth below, we will grant this motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) but recommend that the Court dismiss
Eakle’s complaint for failure to timely state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
without prejudice to allowing Eakle to attempt to correct the deficiencies noted in this
complaint by filing an amended complaint which sets forth claims within the period
of the statute of limitations.
II.

Discussion

A.

Screening of Pro Se Prisoner Complaints–Standard of Review

This Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se
complaints which seek redress against government officials. Specifically, we are
obliged to review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A which provides, in
pertinent part:

2

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 3 of 14

(a) Screening. - The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or,
in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a
civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal. - On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
Under Section 1915A, the Court must assess whether a pro se complaint “fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” This statutory text mirrors the
language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides
that a complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
With respect to this benchmark standard for legal sufficiency of a complaint,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly noted the evolving
standards governing pleading practice in federal court, stating that:
Standards of pleading have been in the forefront of jurisprudence in
recent years. Beginning with the Supreme Court's opinion in Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) continuing with our
opinion in Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir.
2008)and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal –U.S.–, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) pleading standards
3

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 4 of 14

have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more
heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the
possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009).
In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, the court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint are to be construed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel,
Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court “need not credit a
complaint’s bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss.”
Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Additionally
a court need not “assume that a ... plaintiff can prove facts that the ... plaintiff has not
alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of
Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). As the Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), in order to state a valid cause of action a
plaintiff must provide some factual grounds for relief which “requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
actions will not do.” Id. at 555. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Id. In keeping with the principles of Twombly,
the Supreme Court has underscored that a trial court must assess whether a complaint
4

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 5 of 14

states facts upon which relief can be granted when ruling on a motion to dismiss. In
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court held that,
when considering a motion to dismiss, a court should “begin by identifying pleadings
that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Id. at 1950. According to the Supreme Court, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. at 1949. Rather, in conducting a review of the adequacy of complaint,
the Supreme Court has advised trial courts that they must:
[B]egin by identifying pleadings that because they are no more than
conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Id. at 1950.
Thus, following Twombly and Iqbal a well-pleaded complaint must contain
more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a complaint must recite factual
allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff’s claimed right to relief beyond the level
of mere speculation. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
stated:
[A]fter Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the
factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District
Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but
may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must
5

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 6 of 14

then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient
to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” In other
words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement
to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts.

Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11.
In addition to these pleading rules, a civil complaint must comply with the
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which defines what
a complaint should say and provides that:
(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the
court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and
conclusions. Rather, a pro se plaintiff’s complaint must comply with the statute of
limitations, and recite factual allegations which are sufficient to raise the plaintiff’s
claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a “short and
plain” statement of a cause of action. Applying these standards, we find that this
complaint, in its present form, is subject to summary dismissal.

6

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

B.

Filed 01/10/12 Page 7 of 14

Eakle’s Current Complaint Fails to Meet the Pleading Standards
Prescribed by Law Because The Claims Set Forth in the Complaint
Are Barred by the Statute of Limitations

Judged against these standards, Eakle’s current pro se complaint clearly fails
to state a claim within the period of the statute of limitations upon which relief can
be granted. In this regard, when conducting a screening review of a pro se complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may consider whether the complaint is barred under
the applicable statute of limitations. As the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit recently explained when it affirmed the screening dismissal of a pro se
complaint on statute of limitations grounds:
Civil rights claims are subject to the statute of limitations for personal
injury actions of the pertinent state. Thus, Pennsylvania's two year
statutory period applies to [these] claims. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d
360, 368 (3d Cir.2000). The limitations period begins when the plaintiff
knows or had reason to know of the injury forming the basis for the
federal civil rights action. Gera v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 256
Fed.Appx. 563, 564-65 (3d Cir.2007). Although we have not addressed
the issue in a precedential decision, other courts have held that although
the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, district court may
sua sponte dismiss a complaint under § 1915(e) where the defense is
obvious from the complaint and no development of the factual record is
required. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th .2006); see
also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656-57 (4th Cir.2006)
(citation omitted)(finding that a district court's screening authority under
§ 1915(e) “differentiates in forma pauperis suits from ordinary civil suits
and justifies an exception to the general rule that a statute of limitations
defense should not be raised and considered sua sponte.”).

7

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 8 of 14

Smith v. Delaware County Court 260 F. App’x. 454, 455 (3d Cir. 2008); see also
Jackson v. Fernandez, No. 08-5694, 2009 WL 233559 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2009); Hurst
v. City of Dover, No. 04-83, 2008 WL 2421468 (D. Del. June 16, 2008).
Applying these standards, the Court finds that the allegations in this pro se
complaint are clearly subject to dismissal on statute of limitations grounds.
Specifically, this complaint–which alleges misconduct by government actors
beginning in February of 2006 and concluding in September of 2009– was first filed
on December 28, 2011, more than two years after the last events complained of by
Eakle and almost six years after the first of the events recited in this pleading.
Therefore, the complaint is simply time-barred by the two year statute of limitations
generally applicable to civil rights matters.
It is well-settled that claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject
to the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471
U.S. 261, 266-67 (1985). In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for a personal
injury action is two years. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524. A cause of action accrues for statute
of limitations purposes when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury
that constitutes the basis of the cause of action. Sameric Corp. of Delaware, Inc. v.
City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998); see also, Nelson v. County
of Allegheny, 60 F.3d 1010 (3d Cir. 1995).

8

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 9 of 14

While this two-year limitations period may be extended based upon a
continuing wrong theory, a plaintiff must make an exacting showing to avail himself
of this grounds for tolling the statute of limitations. For example, it is well settled
that the “continuing conduct of [a] defendant will not stop the ticking of the
limitations clock [once] plaintiff obtained requisite information [to state a cause of
action]. On discovering an injury and its cause, a claimant must choose to sue or
forego that remedy.” Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 154 (3d Cir.
1998) (quoting Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F. 2d 356, 360 (3d Cir.
1986)). See also Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 266-68 (3d Cir. 2000). Instead:
The continuing violations doctrine is an “equitable exception to the
timely filing requirement.” West v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744,
754 (3d Cir.1995). Thus, “when a defendant's conduct is part of a
continuing practice, an action is timely so long as the last act evidencing
the continuing practice falls within the limitations period; in such an
instance, the court will grant relief for the earlier related acts that would
otherwise be time barred.” Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of
Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1295 (3d Cir.1991).In
order to benefit from the doctrine, a plaintiff must establish that the
defendant's conduct is “more than the occurrence of isolated or sporadic
acts.” West, 45 F.3d at 755 (quotation omitted). Regarding this inquiry,
we have recognized that courts should consider at least three factors: (1)
subject matter-whether the violations constitute the same type of
discrimination, tending to connect them in a continuing violation; (2)
frequency-whether the acts are recurring or more in the nature of
isolated incidents; and (3) degree of permanence-whether the act had a
degree of permanence which should trigger the plaintiff's awareness of
and duty to assert his/her rights and whether the consequences of the act
would continue even in the absence of a continuing intent to
discriminate. See id. at 755 n. 9 (citing Berry v. Board of Supervisors of
Louisiana State Univ., 715 F.2d 971, 981 (5th Cir.1983)). The

9

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 10 of 14

consideration of “degree of permanence” is the most important of the
factors. See Berry, 715 F.2d at 981.

Cowell v. Palmer Township. 263 F.3d 286, 292 (3d Cir. 2001)
In this case, Eakle complains about an array of matters, which commenced in
February of 2006 and ended with the denial of the last of his many grievances in
September of 2009. In every instance, the detailed factual narrative set forth in
Eakle’s complaint plainly reveals that Eakle immediately attached a high degree of
significance and permanence to the events set forth in this complaint, since he
promptly grieved those events to prison officials. Thus, Eakle recites well-pleaded
facts in his complaint which clearly reveal that, to the extent these events entailed
violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights those violations were known and
recognized by Eakle when they occurred, between February 2006 and September
2009. Thus, these events plainly had the degree of significance and permanence
which should have triggered the plaintiff's awareness of his duty to assert his rights.
Thus, in this case a straightforward application of the two-year statute of limitations
also compels dismissal of this action as untimely.
Eakle cannot save these time-barred claims by resort to the continuing violation
theory since that tolling doctrine “will not stop the ticking of the limitations clock
[once] plaintiff obtained requisite information [to state a cause of action]. On
discovering an injury and its cause, a claimant must choose to sue or forego that

10

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 11 of 14

remedy.” Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 154 (3d Cir. 1998).
Indeed, with respect to the controlling consideration relating to this equitable tolling
doctrine, “the degree of permanence [of the injury, i.e.]-whether the act had a degree
of permanence which should trigger the plaintiff's awareness of and duty to assert his
rights,” Cowell v. Palmer Township. 263 F.3d 286, 292 (3d Cir. 2001), it is apparent
from the allegations set forth in Eakle’s complaint that he subjectively identified the
gravity and permanence of these events when they occurred since he chose to
promptly grieve these incidents. Thus, on these facts, Eakle simply cannot evade the
bar of the statute of limitations on some continuing wrongs theory, since the wrongs,
if any, committed here were fully known by Eakle more than two years ago.
Therefore, on the face of Eakle’s complaint, these claims are all time-barred.
C.

The Request for Unliquidated Damages Is Improper

We also note that the plaintiff’s demand for specified compensatory damages
from the defendant in the amount of $8,900,000, (Doc. 1), is inappropriate under the
rules of this Court. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposes a duty
on the Court to review pleadings and provides that the Court may upon its own
initiative at any time order stricken from any pleading any immaterial matter. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f). Decisions regarding whether claims may be stricken from a complaint
are properly presented to a United States Magistrate Judge for determination in the
first instance. Singh v. Superintending School Committee of the City of Portland, 593
11

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 12 of 14

F. Supp. 1315 (D. Me. 1984). In this case, the plaintiff’s claim for a specified amount
of unliquidated damages violates Local Rule 8.1 which provides, in part, that: “ The
demand for judgment required in any pleading in any civil action pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3) may set forth generally that the party claiming damages is
entitled to monetary relief but shall not claim any specific sum where unliquidated
damages are involved. The short plain statement of jurisdiction, required by Fed.R.
Civ.P.8(a)(1), shall set forth any amounts needed to invoke the jurisdiction of the
court but no other.” Local Rule 8.1 (emphasis added). Since this prayer for relief
violates Local Rule 8.1 by specifying a particular amount of unliquidated damages,
it is further recommended that this specific dollar claim be stricken from the
complaint.
D.

Eakle’s Complaint Should be Dismissed Without Prejudice

While this screening merits analysis calls for dismissal of this action in its
current form, we recommend that Eakle be given another, final opportunity to further
litigate this matter by endeavoring to promptly file an amended complaint setting
forth claims within the period of the statute of limitations. We recommend this
course mindful of the fact that in civil rights cases pro se plaintiffs often should be
afforded an opportunity to amend a complaint before the complaint is dismissed in
its entirety, see Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247,
253 (3d Cir. 2007), unless granting further leave to amend is not necessary in a case
12

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 13 of 14

such as this where amendment would be futile or result in undue delay, Alston v.
Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, it is recommended that the
Court provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to correct these deficiencies in the pro
se complaint, by dismissing this deficient complaint at this time without prejudice to
one final effort by the plaintiff to comply with the rules governing civil actions in
federal court, by filing an amended complaint containing any timely and proper
claims which he may have.
III.

Recommendation

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the
plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be GRANTED (Doc. 2), but
that the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff
endeavoring to correct the defects cited in this report, provided that the plaintiff acts
within 20 days of any dismissal order.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings,
recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in
28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the
disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file
with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties,
written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is
made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set
forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may
13

Case 1:11-cv-02384-JEJ Document 7

Filed 01/10/12 Page 14 of 14

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however,
need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where
required by law, and may consider the record developed before the
magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of
that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall
witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
Submitted this 10th day of January 2012.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

14