THOMPSON v. BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE (PENNSYLVANIA) et al
ORDER denying 50 Motion Release. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 10/16/17. (bb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
(PENNSYLVANIA), DEPARTMENT OF
HILDENBRANDT, MR. DOUGLAS, JUDGE
RANDAL B. TODD, JEREMY STEWART,
MS. TORMA, and DR. RICHARD LEARN,
Civil Action No. 16-1161
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 50
Plaintiff Lynne Thompson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“BPP”), Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
(“DOC”), Heather Hildenbrandt, Mr. Douglas, Judge Randal B. Todd (“Judge Todd”),1 Jeremy
Stewart, Ms. Torma and Dr. Richard Learn (collectively, “Defendants”), in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on January 19, 2016. In her Complaint,
Plaintiff purports to raise civil rights claims for malicious prosecution, “wrongful incarceration,”
and various other actions (illegal restraint, abuse of authority, fraud, conspiracy, abuse of power,
malicious arrest, prosecutorial misconduct), stemming from her arrest by a state parole agent on
a state detainer, which Plaintiff claims was based on a “bogus” charge. Id. Defendants timely
removed the case to this Court on July 29, 2016. ECF No. 1.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Release, ECF No. 50, in which she
alleges that she is stricken with an unidentified “serious medical condition” that requires “life
Judge Todd was dismissed from the case on July 13, 2017, pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 37.
supporting medication” which the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”) refuses to provide. Id.
Plaintiff contends that, as a result, her health has progressively deteriorated which has impeded
her ability to concentrate on her case and asks the Court to order her release from the ACJ. Id.
The Motion will be denied.
First, Plaintiff’s Motion is devoid of any facts to support her claims such as what life
threatening illness she suffers from, what medication the ACJ has failed to provide, who has
failed to provide it, or whether she has complained to anyone at the ACJ. Further, the ACJ is not
a Defendant in this action and neither the BPP nor the DOC, who are Defendants, have any
control over the ACJ or access to Plaintiff’s medical records. Finally, the Court is without
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state proceedings and is without the authority to order her release.
See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (claims that indirectly attack the validity of a
conviction via a civil rights suit are barred unless the conviction has, in effect, been overturned).
Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Release, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion, ECF No. 50, is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5500 Beverly Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
All counsel of record via CM/ECF
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?