NICHOLAS v. GIOLA et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 15 Amended Complaint filed by Patrick Nicholas. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 1/27/2025. (ve)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICK NICHOLAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TAMMY GIOLA, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:24-CV-01769
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is Patrick Nicholas’ (“Plaintiff”) amended
complaint alleging that the State Correctional Institution Smithfield (“SCISmithfield”) violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff is a
self-represented litigant, and the court previously granted Plaintiff in forma
pauperis status. (Doc. 13.) The court will screen the amended complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state
a claim on which relief can be granted, and grant Plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint.
BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2024, the court received and docketed Plaintiff’s complaint.
(Doc. 2.) The complaint named three defendants: (1) Tammy Giola, MSN, RN,
CHCA; (2) Dr. Prince, Doctor; and (3) SCI-Smithfield. (Doc. 2, pp. 3–4.) 1 On
1
For ease of reference, the court utilizes the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
1
October 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. 8.) The
court granted Plaintiff’s motion on December 4, 2024. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff then
filed the amended complaint on December 20, 2024. (Doc. 15.) The court will
now screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which allows a district court to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction in civil cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States. Venue is proper in this district because the alleged acts and
omissions giving rise to the claims occurred at SCI-Smithfield, located in
Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. §
118(b).
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court “shall dismiss” an in forma
pauperis case “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to 2
state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” The legal standard for
dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is
identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions
to dismiss. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 109-10 & n.11 (3d
Cir. 2002).
2
In order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept all well pleaded allegations as
true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Doe
v. Univ. of the Scis., 961 F.3d 203, 208 (3d Cir. 2020). The pleadings of selfrepresented plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by attorneys and are to be liberally construed. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d. Cir. 2011). Selfrepresented litigants are to be granted leave to file a curative amended complaint
even when a plaintiff does not seek leave to amend, unless such an amendment
would be inequitable or futile. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,
245 (3d Cir. 2008).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must meet two threshold
requirements. He must allege: 1) that the alleged misconduct was committed by a
person acting under color of state law; and 2) that as a result, he was deprived of
3
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Moreover, it is well-settled that
neither a state nor its agencies, are considered a “person” as that term is defined
under § 1983 and, therefore, are not subject to a § 1983 suit. Hafer v. Melo, 502
U.S. 21, 25–27 (1997). Similarly, neither a prison nor a department within a prison
is a person subject to suit under § 1983. Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d
Cir, 1973). SCI-Smithfield is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Since SCI-Smithfield is the sole defendant named in the amended
complaint, it will be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.
4
CONCLUSION
Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted. Consequently, his amended complaint must be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). However, the Third Circuit has
found that a self-represented plaintiff may be granted leave to file an amended
complaint even when he does not seek leave to amend. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245.
Therefore, Plaintiff will be given leave to file a second amended complaint
properly identifying any and all defendants. An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: January 27, 2025
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?