Sowell v. Paulhamus et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM Based on the foregoing, we must dismiss Sowell's Complaint 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). With respectto his claims challenging aspects of his conviction and resulting sentence, we shall dismiss these claims without prejudice to Sowell's right to file afederal habeas corpus petition under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2254 following the exhaustion of his state court remedies. With respect to his claims for monetary damages, because these claims are barred by Heck, no amendment to the Complaint would allow him to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted, and any attempt to amend would therefore be futile; thus, we shall di smiss these claims with prejudice. See Alston, 363 F.3d at 235; Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108. As to Sowell's pending Motions, his Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) will be granted for the sole purpose of filing the Complaint, and his remaining Motions (Docs. 4, 7, 9, 11) will be denied as moot.An appropriate Order will issue on today's date.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 11/7/12. (jfg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARKALE AL·SAMOD SOWELL,

CIVIL NO. 3:12·CV·1971

Plaintiff,

(Judge Mariani)

v.
JEFF PAULHAMUS, et al.
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Markale AI-Samod SoWell ("Plaintiff' or "Sowell"), an inmate presently confined
I

at the State Correctional Institution Pi~e Grove ("SCI Pine Grove") in Indiana, Pennsylvania,
initiated the above civil rights action QtQ se by filing a Complaint under the provisions of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Sowell has fequested leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
action (see Doc. 2), and therefore, the Complaint currently is before the Court for screening
i

i

under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons set forth below, Sowell's request for
in forma pauperis status will be granted for the sole purpose of filing the Complaint, and the
Complaint will be dismissed under the: provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to
state aclaim upon which relief may b~ granted.
I.

Allegations of the Complaint
In his Complaint, filed on October 2, 2012, Sowell names as Defendants Jeff Paulhamus,

Roy Snyder, and Tim Miller, police 0rcers employed by the Williamsport Police Department;
Melissa A. Kalaus and Aaron Biichle. Assistant District Attorneys employed by the Lycoming

!

!

I
,

County District Attorney's Office; Judge Marc F. Lovecchio of the Lycoming County Court of
t

\

Common Pleas; Magisterial District Ju~ge James Carn; the Lycoming County Prison Warden; the
Lycoming County Prison; the

Williams~ort Police Department; the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections; and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1at 1,2,3,6.)
Sowell states that, on August 2, 2011, following ajury trial in the Lycoming County Court
of Common Pleas, he was found guilty of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, possession of
I

a prohibited 'firearm, carrying firearmslwithout a license, two counts of reckless endangerment,

\

simple assault, and reckless driving.(kL at 4, 5.) He was found not guilty of receiving stolen
property. (Id. at 5.) Sowell states that his appeal from his judgment of sentence is pending before

I
~

the Pennsylvania Superior Court. (kL)
In his Complaint, Sowell complains about Defendants' actions throughout his criminal
proceedings, beginning with his arrest by Officer Paulhamus on September 26, 2010, and
continuing throughout the ensuing court proceedings, and in particular, the handling of evidence
by police, and the treatment of procedural issues by the attorneys who prosecuted his case and
the presiding judges. (kL at 4-7.) Sp$cifically, Sowell describes the events that took place after
his arrest on September 26,2010, which he claims occurred after he was involved in acar accident
and "tased [sic] multiple times by officers of the Williamsport Police Department." (Doc. 1at 4.)
He complains that he was injured and in pain, but did not immediately receive medical treatment.

(ldJ Instead, he alleges that he had tQ wait until he was transported by Officer Paulhamus to the
Lycoming County Prison, where he saj anurse and then adoctor. (kL) He then complains about
I

additional delays he faced at the Williarpsport Hospital Emergency Room after asheriff transported
2

him there at the direction of the prison doctor, but admits that the sheriff then transported him to
the Muncy Valley Hospital Emergenc~ Room, where he received treatment for contusions to the
upper back and lower abdomen before being transported back to the Lycoming County Prison.
(1!i)

Sowell also complains about +e disposition of procedural issues by Magisterial District
Judge Carn and Judge Levecchio relatjng to an alleged failure to properly process Sowell upon his
arrest, including afailure to 'fingerprint him, which he alleges resulted in his being "forced" to stand
trial and being found guilty of all chargEts except the receiving stolen property charge. (ld. at 4-5.)
He also complains about allegedly improper handling of evidence by Officers Paulhamus and
Snyder, which he claims he learned about through discovery in his criminal proceedings. (l!t at
5.) Sowell 'further seeks to impose liability on the Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted the
case against him for allegedly not reporting a crime that took place against him and allowing the
case to proceed even though he allegedly was not properly processed at the time of his arrest.
(Id. at 6-7.)
Sowell seeks the suppression of all evidence, dismissal of all charges, release from
imprisonment, expungement of all charges, as well as monetary compensation for the alleged
wrongs committed by Defendants throughout his criminal proceedings, including money to
compensate him for the time he has s~rved and for his lost wages. (1!i at 9.)
II.

Standard of Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii), a federal court must dismiss a case filed in forma
3

pauperis if the court determines that .e complaint 'fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted." In reviewing the legal sufficiency of acomplaint, 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
I

aclaim to relief that is plausible on itslface." 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 a complaint 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 a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's
elements will not do." Twombly, 550 U;S. at 555 (citation omitted). To survive amotion to dismiss,
the factual allegations in the

compl~int

"must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative leveL" kL.
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, acomplaint that sets forth
facts which affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff has no right to recover is properly dismissed
!

without leave to amend. Grayson v. $ayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

4

III.

Discussion
Preliminarily, we observe that, ~hile Sowell includes details in his Complaint concerning an
!

•

~
,
1

alleged delay in providing medical treatment immediately following his arrest, he does not assert
aclaim with respect to these circumsta~ces, and none of his requests for relief relate to this alleged

I
I
j

delay in obtaining medical treatment. Thus, it does not appear that he was attempting to assert

f
a deliberate indifference claim on the basis of failure to provide adequate medical treatment and

J
I
1­

we have not construed any such claiJ in screening the Complaint.
I

In his Complaint, Sowell first sE;teks to challenge alleged procedural errors in his criminal
proceedings that resulted in his conviction and incarceration. It is well-settled that ahabeas corpus

~­

!

!

I
I

I

f

petition is the proper mechanism for aprisoner to use to challenge either the fact or duration of his
confinement in prison. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Telford v. Hepting, 990 F.2d
745, 748 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U~S. 920 (1993). Federal habeas corpus review is available
"where the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention."

f

I

l

I
f
~

r

Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 5401(3d Cir. 2002). Thus, Sowell's challenges concerning his
criminal proceedings and conviction a~e not properly pursued in the instant civil rights action and

I
t

I

must be dismissed.
Further, we observe that, before filing ahabeas corpus petition in federal court, apetitioner
is required to exhaust the remedies aV1ailable in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). In
his Complaint, Sowell admits that his direct appeal from his judgment of sentence remains pending
in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arid thus he has not yet exhausted his state court remedies.
5

I
J

\

Sowell has 'flied two Motions in the :instant case seeking a stay of this action pending the

completion of the appellate process in ttate cou rt. (Docs. 7. 11.) However. where the instant eiviI

I
I
I

rights action is not the proper mechanism for Sowell to pursue his claims, there is no basis to stay
this action pending the disposition of hi~ appeal by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and thus we

l

I

I

shall deny these Motions, along with Sdwell's other Motions requesting the appointment ofcounsel
(Doc. 4) and for discovery (Doc. 9), as moot.
In this action, Sowell also seeks Imonetary damages based upon alleged wrongs committed
by Defendants in handling his criminal case. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the

I
I
i
t

Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional cause of action for damages does not accrue "for
allegedly unconstitutional conviction o~ 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

I

I
I
t
f

I

t
I.

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
federal court's issuance of awrit of ha~eas corpus." lil at 486-87. It is clear that the award of the
monetary damages that Sowell seeks in this action would implicate the validity of his conviction.
Moreover, it is apparent that Sowell

c~nnot

I
!

demonstrate that his conviction has been reversed

inasmuch as his direct appeal fron1 his judgment of sentence remains pending.

Thus,

notwithstanding any consideration as to any of the Defendants' immunity to the claims asserted
against them, Sowell's claims for

mo~etary

damages are barred by the doctrine established in

Heck and must be dismissed.

!

!
I
t

f

6

r
,

\

IV.

Conclusion
i

Based on the foregoing, we must dismiss Sowell's Complaint 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). With
respectto his claims challenging aspects of his conviction and resulting sentence, we shall dismiss
these claims without prejudice to Sowell's right to file a federal habeas corpus petition under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 following the exhaustion of his state court remedies. With respect
to his claims for monetary damages, because these claims are barred by Heck, no amendment to

a

the Complaint would allow him to state claim upon which relief may be granted, and any attempt
to amend would therefore be futile; thus, we shall dismiss these claims with prejudice. See Alston,
363 F.3d at 235; Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108.
As to Sowell's pending Motions, his Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
will be granted for the sole purpose of filing the Complaint, and his remaining Motions (Docs. 4, 7,
9, 11) will be denied as moot.
An appropriate Order will issue on today's date.

I
I

I

!

I

I
I
I

t

Robert D. anam
United States District Judge

I
t

t

I
t

7

f
I
i

I