SCUTELLA v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PA
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants motion to dismiss 11 be DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of the criminal statute before May 24, 2013. Failure to file the amended complaint in a timely manner may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 4/24/13. (lrw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JHEN SCUTELLA,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
_
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-165Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
M.J. Susan Paradise Baxter
This civil action was filed in this Court on July 24, 2012. Plaintiff, an inmate at SCI
Albion, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his conviction under
Pennsylvania’s criminal statute outlawing “Possession with the Intent to Deliver 100-1000 grams
of Cocaine.” As relief, Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court that “the conviction is void and
the [Plaintiff] is entitled to discharge and dismissal without delay.” ECF No. 5, page 7. The only
named Defendant is “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Attorney General of Pennsylvania (Linda
Kelly).”
Defendant moves to dismiss this action. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has filed an opposition
brief. ECF No. 16. The issues are fully briefed and are ripe for disposition by this Court.
A. Standards of Review
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily
consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including
the entry of a final judgment. See ECF Nos. 6, 15.
1
1
1) Pro se litigants
Pro se pleadings, Ahowever inartfully pleaded,@ must be held to Aless stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.@ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). If the
court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it
should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax
and sentence construction, or litigant=s unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. See Boag v.
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552,
555 (3d Cir. 1969)(A[W]e should recognize that a habeas corpus petition prepared by a prisoner
without the aid of counsel may be inartfully drawn and should therefore be read >with a measure
of tolerance.=@); Smith v. U.S. District Court, 956 F.2d 295 (D.C.Cir. 1992); Freeman v.
Department of Corrections, 949 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1991). Under our liberal pleading rules,
during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint
in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001). See, e.g., Nami v. Fauver,
82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)(discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard); Markowitz v.
Northeast Land Company, 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990)(same). Because Plaintiff is a pro se
litigant, this Court will consider facts and make inferences where it is appropriate.
2) Motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint must be accepted as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). A complaint
must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim
2
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (rejecting the traditional 12
(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (specifically applying Twombly analysis beyond the
context of the Sherman Act).
A Court need not accept inferences drawn by a plaintiff if they are unsupported by the
facts as set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Employee Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp.,
394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906
(3d Cir. 1997). Nor must the Court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). See also
McTernan v. City of York, Pennsylvania, 577 F.3d 521, 531 (3d Cir. 2009) quoting Iqbal, ___
U.S. at ___, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (“The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”). A plaintiff’s factual allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556, citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.
2004). Although the United States Supreme Court does “not require heightened fact pleading of
specifics, [the Court does require] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 570.
In other words, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff is “required to make a ‘showing’
rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief.” Smith v. Sullivan, 2008 WL 482469,
at *1 (D. Del.) quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). “This
‘does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,’ but instead ‘simply calls for
enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ the
necessary element.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n.3.
3
Recently, the Third Circuit expounded on the Twombly/Iqbal line of cases:
To determine the sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal, we must
take the following three steps:
First, the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to
state a claim.’ Second, the court should identify allegations that, ‘because
they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.’ Finally, ‘where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement for relief.’
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011) quoting Santiago v.
Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).
B. The Allegations of the Pro se Complaint
In his complaint, Plaintiff challenges his conviction under Pennsylvania’s criminal statute
outlawing “Possession with the Intent to Deliver 100-1000 grams of Cocaine.” As relief, Plaintiff
seeks an order from this Court that “the conviction is void and the [Plaintiff] is entitled to
discharge and dismissal without delay.” ECF No. 5, page 7.
Defendant argues for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim “because it seeks to invalidate the
sentence and obtain immediate release, thus it cannot be brought as a § 1983 action instead of a
habeas petition, nor without having first satisfied the favorable termination rule of Heck v.
Humphrey, but Plaintiff has not done so.” ECF No. 13, page 2.
In Plaintiff’s opposition brief, he clarifies his intent in regard to his complaint. Plaintiff
makes clear that he means to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which he was
convicted, instead of the conviction itself. ECF No. 16, page 1. Plaintiff further explains that he
made an error in the relief he sought in his complaint. Plaintiff states that he only seeks to have
the criminal statute declared unconstitutional.
4
Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant entitled to the benefits of Haines v. Kerner, and its
progeny, and because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that the opportunity to amend
be freely given2, Plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended complaint which more fully states
his claim.
An appropriate Order follows.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 states that “the court should freely give leave [to amend a
complaint] when justice so requires.” Id. “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—
such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as
the rules require, be freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (interpreting
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). An amendment would be futile when the complaint, as
amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In re NAHC, Inc.
Securities Litig., 306 F.3d 1314, 13332 (3d Cir. 2002).
2
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JHEN SCUTELLA,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-165Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2013;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 11] be
DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint challenging
the constitutionality of the criminal statute before May 24, 2013. Failure to file the amended
complaint in a timely manner may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?