SEMULKA v. CLARK et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER - ordering that 1 plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be GRANTED and directing the Clerk of Court to file 16 plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint as the operative "complaint" in this action; and FURTHER ORDERING that plaintiffs "complaint" as amended is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court shall mark the case closed. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 2/21/19. (mwm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD P. SEMULKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ATTORNEY ROBERT CLARK,
STATE OF PENNSVANIA, and
WASHINGTON COUNTY DRUG
TASK FORCE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:17cv846
Electronic Filing
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER OF COURT
Edward P. Semulka (“plaintiff”) commenced this proceeding by filing a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and attaching to it a “complaint” seeking to establish a civil rights
claim for "coercion in involuntary servitude" in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. See Preliminary Statement in Plaintiff's "Third Amended Complaint"
(Doc. No. 16) at 1. Defendant Robert Clark purportedly used false traffic citations and court
dates to coerce plaintiff into becoming a drug informant and failed to be attentive to plaintiff's
periods of incompetency during his service as a drug informant. Defendant Clark and police
officers also "pressured plaintiff into using illicit drugs to gain confidence of illegal drug
dealers." Each of these courses of conduct by defendants resulted "in Plaintiff's heroin overdose
death and revival in October of 2016." Id. at 1.
This was all part of a grand authorization by Pennsylvania State Police officers to coerce
citizens such as plaintiff into becoming drug informants to fight the war on drugs. Plaintiff
fought in that war as an informant from 1985 through 1992. Plaintiff was again working in such
a capacity in October of 2016 when he "suffered a heroin overdose and was dead." Id. at 2. The
heroin overdose was the direct result defendants pressuring plaintiff in the 1980s and 1990s to
use illicit drugs and work as an informant. It was only at the direction of defendant Clark that
plaintiff used illegal drugs. It was this use of illicit drugs that brought about his death in 2016.
Id.
Plaintiff brings up other memories he has from these "events" as well. For example, he
posits:
In the words of the Canonsburg Police (according to a Greg Binotto), Canonsburg Police
used false traffic citations and false traffic stops and conspired to stop plaintiff from
marriage, stop plaintiff from entering the Air Force, and stop Plaintiff from continuing a
construction company making up to $2200 per week partially due to unemployed
disgruntled citizens with Canonsburg Police according to a Greg Binotto. Plaintiff was
raped by a Dana Negley several times when placed at a witness protection house by
defendants in Lower Burrell Pa. in 1986. Then Plaintiff was told by Attorney Robert Clark
that Plaintiff could not tell Plaintiff's fiancé about the rapes. Since Plaintiff travelled from
New Jersey to Washington County Pennsylvania 7 hours away to attend the false traffic
citation hearings, Plaintiff was separated from his fiancé by the defendants ongoing
investigation ruining Plaintiff's marital engagement as Canonsburg Police and Bernard
Coleman planned according to a Greg Binotto.
Third Amended Complaint at p. 2. The "complaint" contains approximately 47 pages of similar
assertions.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed the district courts
to utilize a two-step analysis to determine whether to direct service of a complaint where the
plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.1 First, the court must determine whether the litigant
is indigent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Second, the court must determine
1
This court has not directed service of the complaint. Notwithstanding this, defendant Robert
Clark apparently has elected to enter his appearance voluntarily even though he notes that service
of plaintiff's "complaint" has never occurred. See, e.g., Doc. No. 17 at ¶ 2.
2
whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).2 Roman v. Jeffes,
904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). The court finds plaintiff to be without sufficient funds to
pay the required filing fee. Thus, he will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court identified two types of
legally frivolous complaints: (1) those based upon indisputably meritless legal theory, and (2)
those with factual contentions which clearly are baseless. Id. at 327. An example of the first is
where a defendant enjoys immunity from suit, and an example of the second is a claim
describing a factual scenario which is fanciful or delusional. Id. In addition, Congress has
expanded the scope of § 1915 to require that the court be satisfied that the complaint states a
claim upon which relief can be granted before it directs service; if it does not, the action shall be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A review of plaintiff's "complaint" as amended reveals that it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. It is based on both indisputably meritless legal theory and factual
contentions which are at the very least fanciful. The complaint is devoid of any sound basis to
infer or assume that any of the named defendants committed an actionable wrong against
plaintiff.
It follows that the complaint is grounded in indisputably meritless legal theory and is
otherwise fanciful. Accordingly, the following order is appropriate.
2
This provision is now codified at §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2019, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum
above, IT IS ORDERED that [1] plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the
same hereby is, GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file [16] plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint as the operative "complaint" in this action; and,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s “complaint” as amended be, and the same
hereby is, DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court shall mark the case
closed.
s/David Stewart Cercone
David Stewart Cercone
Senior United States District Judge
cc:
Edward P. Semulka - pro se
Robert J. Grimm, Esquire
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)
4
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?