Shaulis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM - Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Because Plaintiff is seeking his release from prison, no amendment to the Complaint would allow Plaintiff to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted, amendment would be futile, and thus, we shall dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Additionally, we will grant Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of screening. Because we have dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel will be denied as moot.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 1/24/14. (jfg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROY N. SHAULIS, II,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-02998

v.
(Judge Mariani)
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF
PROBATION &PAROLE, et al.,
.

.
.

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Roy N. Shaulis, II ("Plaintiff' or "Shaulis") an inmate currently confined at the
Forest State Correctional Institution in Marienville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Forest"), initiated this
action on Decernber 16, 2013 by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his Constitutional rights were violated when the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole denied him parole. Plaintiff has additionally filed
a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) and a motion to appoint counsel
(Doc. 2).
This matter is before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).1 In screening the Complaint, Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma

1

Section 1915(e)(2) provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ­
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

pauperis will be granted. However, for the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Complaint will be

dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel will be denied as moot.
I.

Allegations of the Complaint

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the "Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole and it's agents deliberating violated conditions and was indifference to state and
federal laws and constitutional rights under due process, under Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution." (sic) (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff further alleges
that he has a right and is entitled to parole because of his remorse, his custody level, and
his good conduct in prison. (Id.). As relief, Plaintiff seeks:
16.)

A declaration that the acts and omissions described herein violated Plaintiff's
rights under constitutional and laws of the United States

17.)

A preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to amend parole
release

18.)

Compensatory damages in the amount of one million dollars against each
defendant jOintly and severally

19.)

Punitive damages in the amount of one million dollars against each
Defendant

(B) the action or appeal ­
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

2

!
20.)

I

Total cost of trial

(sic) (ld. at p. 4).

r

II.

I

Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii), a federal court must dismiss acase

r
~.

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

I

must accept the truth of the plaintiffs factual allegations. Morrison v. Madison Dearborn

f

Capital Partners 11/ LP., 463 F.3d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 2006). The controlling question is
whether the complaint "alleges enough facts to state a claim 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). "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." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
"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 a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. As such, a plaintiffs pleading
3

I

obligation is to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),

which gives the defendant "fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotations omitted).
Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, and pro se

litigants are to be granted leave to file acurative amended complaint Cleven 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. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d
103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
III.

Discussion2

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of his various Constitutional rights
stemming from the denial of his parole. He further alleges that he is entitled to automatic
parole under Act 122 of 2012, Section 5306(8).3 (Doc. 1, p. 2-3). Plaintiff also alleges that
under his criminal case, he was entitled to release on the alternative minimum date. (Doc.
5, p. 2). While he is seeking monetary damages for these violations, he is also seeking
reversal of the parole decision and release from prison. It is well-settled that a habeas

21n screening the Complaint, the Court also considered Plaintiffs supporting brief (Doc. 5) filed on
January 2, 2014.
:I If correct, Plaintiff's argument that he is entitled to automatic parole under Pennsylvania law
means success in this action could necessarily spell immediate or speedier release for Plaintiff. While we
make no judgment as to the validity of this argument, as Plaintiff's Complaint stands, it appears the entirety
of the Complaint is seeking Plaintiffs release from prison.
4

corpus petition is the proper mechanism for a prisoner to use to challenge either the fact or

duration of his confinement in prison. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (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." Learner v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d
Cir.2002). Plaintiff appears not to challenge the procedure used by the Board, but the
ultimate decision of the Board denying him parole. Because Plaintiff is seeking an
injunction for reversal of his parole denial and release from prison, this action lies within the
core of habeas corpus. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489; cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74

I

I

(2005) (State prisoners may bring a § 1983 action for declaratory and injunctive relief
challenging the constitutionality of state parole procedures where prisoners do not seek an
injunction ordering immediate or speedier release into the community; Le. Section 1983
remains available for procedural challenges where success would not necessarily spell
immediate or speedier release for the prisoner).

IV.

I
I

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a
claim. Because Plaintiff is seeking his release from prison, no amendment to the Complaint
would allow Plaintiff to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted, amendment would
be futile, and thus, we shall dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Additionally, we will grant
Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of screening. Because
5

I

!

I

we have dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel will be
denied as moot.

obert D. Mari
United States District Judge

6