Priovolos v. Department of Corrections et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM re Amended Complaint 10 filed by Ernest Priovolos (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 1/12/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EARNEST PRIOVOLOS,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-01999
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
Background
On September 30, 2016, Ernest Priovolos, a
former inmate of the State Correctional Institution at
Rockview, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against (1) the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; (2) John Wetzel,
Secretary of the Department of Corrections; (3) Mark
Garman, Superintendent at SCI-Rockview; and (4) Clerk
Reed, (5) Supervisor Jessica Welch, and (6) K. Witman,
all individuals employed in the Department of Records at
SCI-Rockview.
(Doc. 1.)
The gist of Priovolos’
complaint is that his rights under various provisions of
the United States Constitution were violated when he was
confined for 5 months beyond the date he was re-paroled
on prior criminal convictions. (Id.)
As relief,
Priovolos requests compensatory and punitive damages.
(Id.) Along with the complaint Priovolos filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.)
By memorandum
and separate order of December 19, 2016 the court
screened the complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act and determined that the complaint was subject
to dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).1
The court, however, granted Priovolos an
opportunity to file an amended complaint.
Priovolos was
advised that the amended complaint must be complete in
all respects and delineate whether or not he challenged
the computation of his sentence in state or federal
court and the outcome of the challenge.
The court
In Heck, the Supreme Court ruled that a
constitutional cause of action for damages does not
accrue "for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence
invalid," until the plaintiff proves 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." Id. at
486-87. Thus, Priovolos’s complaint for damages was
legally frivolous.
1.
2
incorporates by reference the reasoning set forth in the
memorandum of December 19, 2016.
On January 10, 2017, Priovolos filed an amended
complaint which does not cure the defect of the original
complaint. It is essentially a reiteration of the
original complaint. Priovolos has not alleged or
attached any documents to his amended complaint
indicating that he challenged the computation of his
sentence in state or federal court by way of a petition
for writ of habeas corpus or otherwise or that a court
has indicated that the computation was erroneous and
overturned the sentence of 5 to 12 months.
Consequently, Priovolos’s claims for damages are barred
by Heck v. Humphrey.
An appropriate order will be entered.
s/Sylvia Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: January 12, 2017
3
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?