Pettis v. Dauphin County Probation
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM re Complaint 1 and mtn to proceed ifp 2 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 4/26/16. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD PETTIS,
Plaintiff
vs.
DAUPHIN COUNTY
PROBATION,
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:15-CV-02444
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
Background
On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald Pettis,
an inmate at the Dauphin County Prison, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the Dauphin County Probation Department.
(Doc. 1.) Pettis claims that he was detained on August
13, 2014, by the Probation Department and placed in the
“county prison for violation of probation” on a
conviction where his maximum sentence had already
expired. (Id.)
Along with the complaint, Pettis filed
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and an authorization to have funds
deducted from his prison trust fund account to pay the
filing fee in installments. (Docs. 2, 3.)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "PLRA"),
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996)
imposed new obligations on prisoners who file suit in
federal court and wish to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, e.g., the full filing fee
ultimately must be paid (at least in a non-habeas suit).
Also, a new section was added which relates to screening
complaints in prisoner actions.1
For the reasons
outlined below, Pettis’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis will be construed as a motion to proceed
without full prepayment of the filing fee and granted,
and Pettis’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to
submit an amended complaint.
1.
Section 1915(e)(2) provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is
untrue; or (B) the action or appeal (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
2
A plaintiff, in order to state a viable § 1983
claim, must plead two essential elements:
1) that the
conduct complained of was committed by a person acting
under color of state law, and 2) that said conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or
immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.
Natale v. Camden County Corr. Facility,
318 F.3d 575, 580-581 (2003);
Groman v. Township of
Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995); Shaw by
Strain v. Strackhouse, 920 F.2d 1135, 1141-42 (3d Cir.
1990).
Although individual county probation officers
may be subject to suit under § 1983, a Probation
Department is not an person subject to suit under §
1983. Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and
Parole, 551 F.3d 193, 198 (3d Cir. 2008); Hyde v.
Northumberland County Probation Department, 2013 WL
5924502, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2013) (“Hyde's claim
against the Northumberland County Probation Department
is barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the
Northumberland County Probation Department is a part of
the Commonwealth's Unified Judicial System.”)(Brann,
3
J.); Sarnoski v. Lackawanna Probation Department, 2012
WL 2192439, at *3 (M.D.Pa. June 14, 2012)(same).
Although the complaint as filed fails to state a
cause of action against Dauphin County Probation
Department, it is possible that the deficiencies may be
remedied by filing an amended naming the individual
Probation Officers involved in the alleged wrongful
conduct.
Consequently, Pettis will be granted such an
opportunity. Pettis is advised that the amended
complaint must be complete in all respects.
It must be
a new pleading which stands by itself without reference
to the complaint already filed.
Such amended complaint
should set forth his claims in short, concise and plain
statements.
It should specify which actions are alleged
as to which defendants. If Pettis fails to file an
4
amended complaint adhering to the standards set forth
above, this case will be closed.
An appropriate order will be entered.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: April 26, 2016
5
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?