Christian v. Municipal Officials

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 1/13/16. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DIS TRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JULIO CHRISTIAN ,
Plaintiff
CI VIL NO. 3 : CV - 16 - 33

v.

(Judge Conaboy)

MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS ,

1

Defendants

~

c

MEMORANDUM

Background

This Q£Q se civil rights action was initiated by Julio
Christian , an inmate presently confined at the Rockview State
Correctional Institution , Bellefonte , Pennsyl va nia (SCI Rockv iew ) . The required filing fee has not been paid and
Plaintiff has not submitted an in f orma pauperis application.
Named as Defendants in the Complaint are "Municipal
Officials."

Doc . 1, p. 1 .

There are no Defendants identified by

name and Plaintiff vaguely indicates only that he wishes to
proceed against City of Philadelphia officials.

The Complaint

generally asserts o nly that multiple unidentified indi v iduals
acting under color of state law ha ve engaged in a conspiracy for
the purpose of subjecting him to racially based retaliation and
discrimination . He appears to be asserting claims based upon

1

(015

conduct associated with his arrest and subsequent state criminal
conviction

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 1

There are no specific dates, actions, or events described
or referenced in the Complaint.

Rather, Christian simply sets

forth a series of wholly conclusory, vague, and
allegations indicat

that his constitutional rights were

olated by unidentified offici
racial

it

scriminatory scheme.

s as part of some undisclosed
Plaintiff seeks some type of

unspecified injunctive relief.
Discussion

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that a fede

civil action

is barred if he or

by a prisoner proceeding
she:

has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appe
in
a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a
aim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical
injury.
As noted above, Plaintiff has an extensive
filing frivolous lawsuits in this district.

story of

For instance, while

incarcerated, Christian previously initiated the following civil

On August 27, 1987, Christian entered a guilty plea to
mult
e drug charges in the Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
Court of Common Pleas.
See Christian v. Commonwealth, Civil No.
2:07-cv-3715 (E.D. Pa. March 28, 2008).
2

actions which were dismissed as frivo l ous by this Court :
Christian v. Muncipial Officers , et al ., Civil No . 3 : 15 - 22342
(Jan.

8 , 2016) (sua sponte dismissal unde r 28 U. S . C . §

1915(e) (2) (B) (i) ; Christian v . State Officers , et al ., No . 3:15 ­
1829 (Nov. 30 , 2015 )

(dismissal on grounds that § 1983 complaint

is frivolous) ; Christian v . Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole , Civil No . 3 : 13 - 2432 (January 19 , 2014) (sua sponte
dismissal under 28 U. S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (1) .

Other actions

filed in this district by Christian have been withdrawn ;
dismissed for failure to pay t he required filing fee or submit an
in forma pauperis application ; or transferred to another district
court .
The unconstitut i onal conduct alleged in Christia n' s latest
action does not place this inmate in danger of imminent " serious
physical injury " at the time his Complaint was filed on December
31 , 2015.

See Abdul - Akbar v . McKelvie , 239 F . 3d 307, 312

(3d

Cir . 2001) ; McCarthy v. Warden , USP-Allenwood , 2007 WL 207 1 891 *2
(M . D. Pa. July 18 , 2007) (Caldwell , J . )

(the danger of serious

physical injur y must be about to occur at any moment or impending
at the time the complaint was filed , not at the time of the
alleged incident) .

On the contrary ,

this action pr i marily

cent er s on alleged event s which transpired prior to the
Plaintiff ' s incarceration .

3

Plaintiff has had at least three prior act
as frivolous.

Second, there is no indication

t Christian is

alleging that he was subjected to any constitut
dur

dismissed

1 violat

ongoing Pennsylvania state

the course of h

incarceration, as such, he was not placed at risk of serious
Based upon those

physical injury when this action was filed.

dismissed under

considerations, this action will

It is also noted that no Defendant is
identifi

in the Compla

are officials of the City of Phil

Moreover, based upon a 1

1915(g)

cifically

a passing reference that they

e

support for any discernible c

§

im a

Iphia and there is no factual
inst any Defendant.

ral reading of

Complaint, it

appears that Christian's pending allegations are more properly
raised in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
wh

would be best initi

for the Eastern

in the United States Dist

strict of Pennsylvania.

§

2254
ct Court

An appropriate Order

11 enter.

i!&1{N~Y (V~

United States District Judge

DATED: JANUARY

("

2016

The trial court (Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas), as well as any records, witnesses and counsel, are located
within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
4