Wicks v. Corbit et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1. Plaintiffs Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is GRANTED for the sole purpose of 'filing the Complaint.2. Plaintiffs previously filed Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot. 3. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 5. Any appeal from this Order will be deemed frivolous, lacking merit, and not taken in good faith.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 10/16/12. (jfg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID BRYANT WICKS,

CIVIL NO. 3:12·CV·1614

Plaintiff,

(Judge Mariani)

v.
GOVERNOR TOM CORBETT, et a1 1,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff David 8ryant Wicks ("Plaintiff' or "Wicks"), an inmate presently confined at the
State Correctional Institution Rockview ("SCI Rockview") in 8ellefonte, Pennsylvania, initiated
the above action QIQ se by filing a civil rights Complaint under the provisions of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (Doc. 1.) Wicks has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
(Docs. 2, 6)2, and the Complaint therefore is before the Court for preliminary screening under
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons set forth herein, Wicks' request for in
forma pauperis status will be granted for the sole purpose of filing the Complaint, and the
Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff names "Governor Tom Corbit" as the lead Defendant in this action. We have
corrected the spelling of Governor Corbett's name in setting forth the caption in this
Memorandum and accompanying Order.
1

2The Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) submitted by Wicks at the
time of initiating this action was not on the proper form required to obtain that status in this
Court. However, Wicks subsequently filed the proper form (Doc. 6), along with his
authorization form (Doc. 7), in response to our August 17, 2012 Administrative Order (Doc. 4).

I.

Allegations of the Complaint

In his Complaint, filed on August 16, 2012, Wicks names as Defendants Governor Tom
Corbett and the Court Administrator for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. He states
that he "presently stands convicted as a felon" at SCI Rockview. (Doc. 1at 21{5.)
Nevertheless, Wicks alleges that the lack of a savings clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution,
as amended in 1968, resulted in the repeal of all state laws in force at the time of its rati'fication,
and thus, any state criminal statutes under which Wicks was charged and convicted are invalid.
(lit at 31l1l6, 8.) He therefore asserts that "all Commonwealth law enforcement officers,

Magistrates, District Attorneys, and judges, are all actually liable to plaintiff for their willful
violations of Federal Constitutions [sic]: Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." (lit
at 3-41{8.) Wicks elaborates that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was
denied the opportunity to present his criminal cases before a grand jury. (lit at 41l1l9-1 0.) He
does not elaborate upon his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
Wicks also includes allegations challenging the laws of Pennsylvania. First, he asserts
that Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes are in violation of the
constitutional requirement of a "one subject title" and that he therefore is "left asking, what is the
subject and nature of the laws used in his criminal complaint against him." (lit at 51l1l11-12.)
Wicks also asserts that there is no statement within the Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes, which
he alleges are "completely edited, and published by the West Publishing Group", that the
statutes are the "official laws of the legislature of Pennsylvania." (kl at 61{14.) Wicks further
2

alleges that, because Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes are published by West Publishing Group,

they are protected by copyright, which suggests that "the laws are derived from a private
source, and thus are not true public laws." (kL ~ 15.)
In his request for relief, Wicks seeks ajury trial, one billion dollars in compensatory
damages, and one hundred million dollars in punitive damages. (kL at 7.)
II.

Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a federal court must dismiss acase

filed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the complaint "fails to state aclaim on which
relief may be granted." In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must accept
the truth of the plaintiffs factual allegations. Morrison v. Madison Dearborn Capital Partners III
L.P., 463 F.3d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 2006). The controlling question is whether the complaint
"alleges enough facts to state aclaim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (rejecting the "no set of facts" language from Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45-46 (1957)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
"While acomplaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed
factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and aformulaic recitation of a cause of action's
elements will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). To survive a motion to
dismiss, the factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative leveL" kL
3

Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), and pro se 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." Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). However, a complaint
that sets forth facts which affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff has no right to recover is
properly dismissed without leave to amend. Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002).

III.

Discussion
Preliminarily, we observe that Wicks names Governor Corbett and the Court

Administrator of Philadelphia County as Defendants, but fails to include any specific factual
allegations against them in his Complaint. Wicks alleges generally that all law enforcement
officers and members of the judiciary in Pennsylvania are liable to him civilly and criminally (see
Doc. 1 at 3-48). However, he does not allege how Governor Corbett, who oversees the
Commonwealth's executive branch, and the Court Administrator of the First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, who oversees the day-to-day operations of the Courts of Philadelphia County,
are liable to him for any alleged violations of his constitutional rights. To establish liability for
the deprivation of a constitutional right, a plaintiff must demonstrate personal involvement by a
defendant. Rode v. Delarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Such involvement may
be established through: 1) personal direction or actual participation by the defendant in the
misconduct; or 2) knowledge of and acquiescence in the misconduct.
4

lit. Where Wicks has

failed to make any specific factual allegations against either of the named Defendants, he has

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against them.
Notwithstanding this flaw, for the reasons that follow, we find that providing Wicks with
an opportunity to attempt to amend his Complaint to state a claim against the named
Defendants would be futile. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 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." lit. at 486-87.
As set forth above, Wicks specifically seeks compensatory and punitive damages based
upon his claim that his conviction and confinement are unconstitutional. An award of monetary
relief would implicate the validity of Wicks' criminal conviction. He therefore cannot pursue his
claims regarding the constitutionality of his conviction unless he can demonstrate that his
conviction has been declared invalid by a state tribunal or has been called into question by a
federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. There is no indication from Wicks'
Complaint that his conviction has been invalidated. Our review of the state court dockets
reveals that, while Wicks appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from a Judgment of
Sentence entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on December 15, 2011,
5

that appeal remains pending, and thus no state tribunal has declared invalid the criminal
conviction for which Wicks currently is incarcerated. 3 Where state court review of Wicks'
criminal conviction has not yet been completed, Wicks also has not yet obtained federal habeas
review of his claims, and thus he cannot demonstrate that his criminal conviction has been
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Consequently,
Wicks has not made the necessary showing to allow him to pursue monetary damages based
upon his alleged unconstitutional confinement. Because Wicks' conviction has not been
determined to be unlawful, his claims asserted in the instant action are barred by Heck.
IV.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we must dismiss Wicks' Complaint for failure to state aclaim
upon which relief may be granted under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Because no amendment to the Complaint would allow Wicks to state aclaim upon which relief
may be granted, amendment would be futile, and thus, we shall dismiss the Complaint with
prejudice. See Alston, 363 F.3d at 235; Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108.

M appropriate Order will issue o~

Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge

3See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. David B. Wicks, 125 EDA 2012, available
through Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System Webportal, Appellate Courts Docket Sheets,
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/appellate.aspx
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID BRYANT WICKS,

CIVIL NO. 3:12·CV·1614

Plaintiff,

(Judge Mariani)

v.
GOVERNOR TOM CORBETT, et ai,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, THIS

ftfn

DAY OF OCTOBER, in accordance with the

Memorandum issued on today's date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1.

Plaintiffs Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is GRANTED for

the sole purpose of 'filing the Complaint.
2.

Plaintiffs previously filed Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)

is DENIED as moot.
3.

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
4.

The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

5.

Any appeal from this Order will be deemed frivolous, lacking merit, and not

taken in good faith.

obert D. Mariani
United States District Judge