Robinson v. Wheary et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM re dfts' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 10 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 5/17/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON ROBINSON,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff
vs.
BRIAN WHEARY, et al.,
Defendants
NO. 1:16-CV-02222
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
I.
Background
On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff Jason Robinson, an inmate previously
confined at the Northumberland County Prison in Pennsylvania, filed a pro se civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The defendants
named in the complaint are the following: (1) Brian Wheary, (2) Roy Johnson, (3)
James Smink, (4) Robert Wolfe, (5) Vinny Clausi, (6) Steven Bridy, (7) Richard
Shock, (8) Ann Targonski, (9) Christopher Grayson, and (10) County of
Northumberland. (Id.) Along with his complaint, Robinson submitted a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and an authorization form. (Doc. Nos. 2 and 3.)
On December 16, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc.
No. 10) and brief in support. (Doc. No. 11.) Robinson filed a brief in opposition
on January 3, 2017. (Doc. No. 13.)
Robinson alleges that Defendants caused the prison to be without window
closures, hot or warm water, and cleaning products, all which exposed him to some
form of harm. (Doc. No. 1.) Robinson also alleges that Defendants failed to
provide him with nutritionally adequate food, denied him adequate, sanitary or
proper clothing and bedding, and denied him out of cell activity. (Id.)
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis will be granted but his complaint will be dismissed and he will be
granted an opportunity to submit an amended complaint.
II.
Discussion
Because Plaintiff complains about prison conditions, the screening
provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
apply, given that Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court
has an obligation to dismiss a complaint under the PLRA screening provisions “at
any time the court determines” the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from suit. See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 6 (9th
Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hence, if there is a ground for dismissal
which was not relied upon by a defendant in a motion to dismiss, the court may
nonetheless sua sponte rest its dismissal upon such ground pursuant to the
screening provisions of the PLRA. See Lopez, 203 F.3d 1122.
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,
2
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 (3d Cir. 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).
A basic rule of pleading requires that a “district court . . . 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 v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009).
While a complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and detailed factual allegations are not required, Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a complaint must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “[L]abels and
conclusions” are not enough, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and a court is “not bound
to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’ ” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted).
3
Robinson’s complaint is completely conclusory and does not specify any
conduct, wrongful or otherwise, of the named defendants. The following are the
facts averred by Robinson in his complaint:
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
At all times, Defendants caused the Northumberland
County Prison to be without window closures, exposing
Plaintiff to freezing temperatures during the winter
months.
At all times, Defendants caused the Northumberland
County Prison to be without hot or warm water,
exposing Plaintiff to the unhygienic conditions
associated with being unable to properly bathe.
At all times, Defendants caused the Northumberland
County Prison to be without cleaning products, exposing
Plaintiff to the unhygienic conditions associated with
being unable to maintain proper sanitary conditions.
At all times, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with
nutritionally adequate food causing Plaintiff to
experience significant weight loss.
At all times, Defendants denied Plaintiff adequate,
sanitary, or proper clothing and bedding, exposing
Plaintiff to unsanitary conditions and freezing
temperatures.
From December 13, 2014 until January 13, 2015,
Defendants denied Plaintiff out of cell activity....
(Doc. No. 1 at 3.) As relief, Robinson requests a declaratory judgment and
monetary and punitive damages. (Id. at 4.)
While pro se parties are accorded substantial deference and liberality in
federal court, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5
(1980), they are not, however, free to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain a short and plain
statement setting forth (1) the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction rests, (2)
4
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for
judgment for the relief sought by the pleader.
Although there is not a heightened pleading standard in §1983 cases, a §1983
complaint in order to comply with Rule 8 must contain at least a modicum of factual
specificity, identifying the particular conduct of the defendant that is alleged to have
harmed the plaintiff, so that the Court can determine that the complaint is not
frivolous and a defendant has adequate notice to frame an answer. A civil rights
complaint complies with this standard if it alleges the conduct violating the
plaintiff's rights, the time and the place of that conduct, and the identity of the
responsible officials.
Under even the most liberal construction, Robinson’s complaint is in
violation of Rule 8. It does not give the defendants fair notice of what his claims
are and the grounds upon which he rests. Even taking into account the fact that
Robinson is proceeding pro se, his complaint is not in conformity with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although brief and concise, it does not set forth
in understandable terms what it is about which Robinson is complaining and against
which defendant. Specifically, while the caption of the complaint names numerous
individual defendants, it contains no well-pleaded factual averments relating to
these specific defendants in the body of the complaint. This style of pleading is
patently inadequate since it fails to allege facts that give rise to a plausible claim for
5
relief. Hudson v. City of McKeesport, 241 F. App’x 519 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming
dismissal of defendant who was only named in caption of case).
Based upon the above legal standards, it is clear that any claims against the
named defendants are subject to dismissal in that Robinson fails to set forth any
factual allegations against them in the complaint. There are no factual allegations
with respect to where and when each defendant was involved in wrongdoing.
Without such factual allegations, it is impossible to conclude that defendants have
deprived Robinson of any constitutional rights entitling him to damages. As such,
the present complaint will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 8, as well as, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the defendants upon
which relief may be granted.
Although the complaint as filed fails to state a cause of action against any of
the named defendants, it is possible that the deficiencies may be remedied by
amendment. Consequently, Robinson will be granted such opportunity. Robinson
is also 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 Robinson fails to file an amended complaint adhering to the
standards set forth above, this case will be closed.
6
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis but will dismiss the complaint and allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to submit an amended complaint. An appropriate order follows.
Date: May 17, 2017
S/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
7
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?