Opinion
Civil No. 3:18-CV-2396
12-21-2018
STEVEN LOVE LUNDY, TRUST, c/o DIVINE ROSE, TRUSTEE Plaintiff v. MONROE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
(Judge Mannion)
( ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Factual Background
Steven Love Lundy is a prisoner currently housed in the Monroe County Prison. Lundy is also a prodigious, and prodigiously unsuccessful, litigant in federal court. This case is the sixth pro se lawsuit filed by Lundy in recent months which has come before us for a screening review. Lundy's prior complaints, while numerous and varied in their legal claims, have shared one common element: They have been devoid of any legal merit.
See e.g., Lundy v. Pocono Mountain Reg'l Police Dep't, No. CV 3:17-2256, 2018 WL 2219282, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 15, 2018); Lundy v. Pocono Mountain Reg'l Police Dep't, No. CV 3:17-2199, 2018 WL 2219100, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 15, 2018); Lundy v. Monroe Cty. Dist. Attorney's Office, No. 3:18-CV-761, 2018 WL 2225268, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Lundy v. Lenning, No. CV 3:18-761, 2018 WL 2219296 (M.D. Pa. May 15, 2018); Lundy v. Monroe Cty. Corr. Facility, No. 3:17-CV-2306, 2017 WL 9362913, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 3:17-2306, 2018 WL 2218824 (M.D. Pa. May 15, 2018).
Having exhausted alternate means of recasting his legal claims, in this pro se lawsuit Lundy adopts a novel approach: He attempts to recast himself. Instead of bringing this action on his behalf in his own name, Lundy has rebranded himself as the Steven Love Lundy Trust, and on behalf of "Divine Rose", the moniker which Lundy gives to the trustee of this trust, he re-states his prior wrongful arrest and imprisonment claims against numerous defendants including police, prosecutors, the courts and his jailers. (Doc. 1.) In this pro se complaint Divine Rose, on behalf of the Steven Love Lundy Trust, seeks Lundy's release from custody and $70,000,000 in damages. (Doc. 1.)
Lundy, or Divine Rose acting as trustee of the Lundy Trust, has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) For the reasons set forth below we will direct that the lodged complaint be filed on the docket for screening purposes only, will conditionally GRANT leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommend that this complaint be dismissed.
II. Discussion
A. Screening of Pro Se Complaints-Standard of Review
This Court has an on-going statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by plaintiffs given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Specifically, we are obliged to review the complaint to determine whether any claims are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This statutory text mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a complaint should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
With respect to this benchmark standard for legal sufficiency of a complaint, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly noted the evolving standards governing pleading practice in federal court, stating that:
Standards of pleading have been in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years. Beginning with the Supreme Court's opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) continuing with our opinion in Phillips [v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008)] and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009).
In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court "need not credit a complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Additionally, a court need not "assume that a ... plaintiff can prove facts that the ... plaintiff has not alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). As the Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), in order to state a valid cause of action a plaintiff must provide some factual grounds for relief which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of actions will not do." Id. at 555. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.
In keeping with the principles of Twombly, the Supreme Court has underscored that a trial court must assess whether a complaint states facts upon which relief can be granted when ruling on a motion to dismiss. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Supreme Court held that, when considering a motion to dismiss, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678. Rather, in conducting a review of the adequacy of complaint, the Supreme Court has advised trial courts that they must:
[B]egin by identifying pleadings that because they are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Id. at 679.
Thus, following Twombly and Iqbal a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. As the Third Circuit has stated:
[A]fter Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to "show" such an entitlement with its facts.
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11.
Two years after Fowler, the Third Circuit further observed:
The Supreme Court in Twombly set forth the "plausibility" standard for overcoming a motion to dismiss and refined this approach in Iqbal. The
plausibility standard requires the complaint to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A complaint satisfies the plausibility standard when the factual pleadings "allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). This standard requires showing "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A complaint which pleads facts "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, [ ] "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement of relief.'"
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220-21 (3d Cir. 2011).
In practice, consideration of the legal sufficiency of a complaint entails a three-step analysis:
First, the court must "tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947. Second, the court should identify allegations that, "because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. at 1950. 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." Id.
Santiago v. Warminster Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).
In addition to these pleading rules, a civil complaint must comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which defines what a complaint should say and provides that:
(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a pro se plaintiff's complaint must recite factual allegations that are sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a "short and plain" statement of a cause of action.
Judged against these legal guideposts, for the reasons set forth below it is recommended that this complaint be dismissed.
B. This Complaint Fails as a Matter of Law
In its current form, this complaint fails as a matter of law for a host of reasons, as described below.
1. Divine Rose , Acting on Behalf of Lundy May Not Sue the Prison or Police Department
First, to the extent that the complaint brings a claim against the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department, we note that this police department is not a proper institutional defendant in this action since police departments serve only as an administrative arm of a municipality, and it is a municipality through which any liability must flow to the police department. Indeed, it has been repeatedly held that a police department is not a "person" for purposes of § 1983 and therefore is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action. Blackwell v. Middletown Borough Police Dep't, 1:12-CV-825, 2012 WL 6012568 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 1:12-CV-825, 2012 WL 6002689 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2012); see Golya v. Golya, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58093, *29-30 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (explaining that courts within the Third Circuit have concluded that a police department is merely a sub-unit of the local government and is not amenable to suit under § 1983); Wivell v. Liberty Township Police Dept., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54306, *5-6 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (explaining that police department not subject to suit in a § 1983 action); Mitros v. Cooke, 170 F. Supp. 2d 504, 507 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (noting that city police department is a sub-unit of the city government that is merely a vehicle through which the city fulfills its policing functions, and is not a separate entity for purposes of suit); Tobin v. Badamo, 3:00CV783, 2000 WL 1880262 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2000) (municipal police department is not a proper party to a section 1983 action because it is merely a subunit of the city and not a separate corporate entity); McMahon v. Westtown-East Goshen Police Dept., No. Civ.A. 98-3919, 1999 WL 236565, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5551, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 1999) (citing Johnson v. City of Erie, 834 F. Supp. 873, 878-79 (W.D. Pa. 1993); Agresta v. City of Philadelphia, 694 F.Supp. 117, 119 (E.D. Pa. 1988)); Johnson v. City of Erie, Pa., 834 F. Supp. 873, 879 (W.D. Pa. 1993).
In light of this consistent case law rejecting efforts to name local departments as institutional defendants in §1983 actions, it is recommended that any claims against this institutional defendant also be dismissed.
Likewise any claims against the county prison as an institutional defendant also fail as a matter of law. As we have previously observed:
[T]o the extent that [the plaintiff] attempts to bring a lawsuit against the county prison as an institution the plaintiff may not maintain a prisoner civil rights action against this particular defendant. Rather, inmate civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be brought against: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States]." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). Thus, § 1983 limits liability to persons who violate constitutional rights, a limitation that courts have construed as not reaching county jails as institutions. In short, "the 'County Jail' is not a proper defendant in this § 1983 case[ ], because it is not a 'person.' See Grabow v. Southern State Correctional Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39 (D.N.J. 1989)(stating that New Jersey Department of Corrections and state prison facilities not "persons" under § 1983); Mitchell v. Chester County Farms Prison, 426 F.Supp. 271, 274 (D.C. Pa. 1976); see also Marsden v. Federal BOP, 856 F.Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (county jail not an entity amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F.Supp. 757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (Cook County Jail not a 'person' under § 1983); McCoy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center, 788 F.Supp. 890, 893-94 (E.D. Va. 1992) (local jail not a 'person' under § 1983)." Crooks v. Passaic County Sheriff's Dep't/Jail, CIV. 07-0092 (FSH), 2007 WL 923330 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2007). See also, Thomas v. Wilbert, CIV.A. 09-4796 GEB, 2011 WL 91001 (D.N.J. Jan. 11, 2011)("County Correctional Institution is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 case and must be dismissed from this action").This limitation on the reach of
proper defendants in a § 1983 civil rights case compels dismissal of this claim, as stated in this pro se complaint, with respect to the county jail, which is not a proper defendant in a civil rights action brought under § 1983.
Dortch v. York Cty. Children & Youth, No. 1:17-CV-1703, 2017 WL 6383074, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2017).
2. Younger Abstention Applies Here
Further, the complaint also seemingly invites us to issue an injunction in this pending state case, directing Lundy's release from custody. To the extent that this complaint invites this court to enjoin aspects of a pending state case, this pro se pleading runs afoul of a settled tenet of federal law, the Younger abstention doctrine.
The Younger abstention doctrine is inspired by basic considerations of comity that are fundamental to our federal system of government. As defined by the courts: "Younger abstention is a legal doctrine granting federal courts discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a claim when resolution of that claim would interfere with an ongoing state proceeding." Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d 126, 130 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971) ("[W]e have concluded that the judgment of the District Court, enjoining appellant Younger from prosecuting under these California statutes, must be reversed as a violation of the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances.")).
This doctrine, which is informed by principles of comity, is also guided by these same principles in its application. As the Third Circuit has observed:
"A federal district court has discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a particular claim where resolution of that claim in federal court would offend principles of comity by interfering with an ongoing state proceeding." Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp. of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 408 (3d Cir.2005) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)). As noted earlier, the Younger doctrine allows a district court to abstain, but that discretion can properly be exercised only when (1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims. Matusow v. Trans-County Title Agency, LLC, 545 F.3d 241, 248 (3d Cir.2008).
Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d at 131.
Once these three legal requirements for Younger abstention are met, the decision to abstain rests in the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Lui v. Commission on Adult Entertainment Establishments, 369 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2004). Moreover, applying these standards, federal courts frequently abstain from hearing requests for injunctive relief which necessarily interfere with on-going state criminal cases. Lui, 369 F.3d 319; Zahl v. Harper, 282 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2002).
In this case, the plaintiff's pro se complaint reveals that all of the legal prerequisites for Younger abstention are present here with respect to those claims that seek to enjoin on-going state cases. First, it is evident that there are state proceedings in this case. Second, it is also apparent that those proceedings afford Lundy a full and fair opportunity to litigate some of the issues raised in this lawsuit in the state case. See Sullivan v. Linebaugh, 362 F. App'x 248, 249-50 (3d Cir. 2010). Finally, it is clear that the state proceedings implicate important state interests, since these matters involve state criminal law enforcement, an issue of paramount importance to the state. See, e.g., Lui, 369 F.3d 319; Zahl, 282 F.3d 204.
Since the legal requirements for Younger abstention are fully met here, the decision to abstain from addressing these requests for injunctive relief rests in the sound discretion of this Court. Lui, 369 F.3d at 325. Given the important state interest in enforcement of its criminal laws and recognizing that the state courts are prepared to fully address the merits of these matters, we believe that the proper exercise of this discretion weighs in favor of abstention and dismissal of these requests for injunctive relief. Lui, 369 F.3d 319; Zahl, 282 F.3d 204.
3. The Judge and District Attorneys Named in This Lawsuit are Entitled to Immunity from Lawsuit.
Furthermore, in this complaint Lundy, or Divine Rose, seek to hold a state court judge and the district attorneys who are prosecuting him personally liable to him for damages. To the extent that the plaintiff seeks in this complaint to hold a state judge or prosecutors personally liable for civil rights violations, it is well-settled that these officials are individually cloaked with immunity from liability. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that those officials performing judicial, quasi-judicial, and prosecutorial functions in our adversarial system must be entitled to some measure of protection from personal liability for acts taken in their official capacities. In order to provide this degree of protection from liability for judicial officials, the courts have held that judges, Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991); prosecutors, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976); and those who perform adjudicative functions, Imbler, 424 U.S. at 423 n. 20 (grand jurors); Harper v. Jeffries, 808 F.2d 281, 284 (3d. Cir. 1986)(parole board adjudicators); are entitled to immunity from personal liability for actions they take in our adversarial system of justice.
Thus, it is beyond dispute that a criminal defendant may not sue prosecutors for their act of filing charges against him since such conduct is cloaked in immunity from civil liability. The immunity conferred upon prosecutors for the quasi-judicial act of filing and bringing criminal charges is broad and sweeping:
[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that state prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for actions performed in a quasi-judicial role. This immunity extends to acts that are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process," such as "initiating a prosecution and ... presenting the State's case." Court has noted numerous public policy considerations underlying its extension
of absolute immunity to prosecutors: [S]uits against prosecutors for initiating and conducting prosecutions "could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State's advocate"; lawsuits would divert prosecutors' attention and energy away from their important duty of enforcing the criminal law; prosecutors would have more difficulty than other officials in meeting the standards for qualified immunity; and potential liability "would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system." ... [T]here are other checks on prosecutorial misconduct, including the criminal law and professional discipline.Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir. 2006)(citations omitted).
Here, we find that this complaint largely seeks to hold prosecutors personally liable for their act of prosecuting him. Since these officials are immune from personal, individual liability for their actions in bringing this criminal case, the claims against these defendants should also be dismissed.
These longstanding common law immunities also prevent Lundy or Divine Rose from maintaining this civil action against the state judge named in this complaint since this judge is absolutely immune from personal liability for any judicial acts, including presiding over a criminal case or sentencing a defendant. See, e.g., Arsad v. Means, 365 F.App'x 327 (3d Cir. 2010); Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 2000). As we have explained when rejecting a similar effort to impose personal civil rights liability on a judge, this immunity is cast in absolute terms:
"It is a well-settled principle of law that judges are generally 'immune from a suit for money damages.' " Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir.2000) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam), and citing Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 536, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1868)). "The doctrine of judicial immunity is founded upon the premise that a judge, in performing his or her judicial duties, should be free to act upon his or her convictions without threat of suit for damages." Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, "[a] judge is absolutely immune from liability for his [or her] judicial acts even if his [or her] exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors," Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978), and "[j]udicial immunity cannot be overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice" Goldhaber v. Higgins, 576 F.Supp.2d 694, 703 (W.D.Pa.2007). Such immunity can be overcome only where a judge's acts are nonjudicial in nature, or where such actions, while judicial in nature, are "taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction." Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12.Catanzaro v. Collins, CIV. A. 09-922, 2010 WL 1754765 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2010), aff'd, 447 F. App'x 397 (3d Cir. 2011); Kwasnik v. Leblon, 228 F. App'x 238, 243 (3d Cir. 2007) ("A judicial officer in the performance of his or her duties has absolute immunity from suit. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.' " Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) ).
In short, since these officials are immune from liability for their role in his criminal prosecution, the plaintiff simply may not maintain an action against these defendants and the claims against the defendant judge and prosecutors must be dismissed.
4. Lundy and Divine Rose May Not Bring a Civil Rights Action for Malicious Prosecution Until the State Case Has Been Resolved in a Fashion Which is Favorable to the Plaintiff
Finally, this complaint fails because it rests on a yet another fatally flawed legal premise. At bottom, the plaintiff seeks to bring a civil rights action premised on claims of malicious prosecution without showing that his state criminal case has been resolved in a fashion which was favorable to the plaintiff.
This he cannot do.
Quite the contrary, it is well-settled that an essential element of a civil rights malicious prosecution claim is that the underlying criminal case must have been terminated in favor of the civil rights claimant. Therefore, where, as here, the civil rights plaintiff brings a malicious prosecution or false arrest claim in a setting where he has not achieved a favorable outcome in the underlying state case, the plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly observed in this regard:
The Supreme Court has "repeatedly noted that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a species of tort liability." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (quoting Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 305, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249(1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Given this close relation
between § 1983 and tort liability, the Supreme Court has said that the common law of torts, "defining the elements of damages and the prerequisites for their recovery, provide[s] the appropriate starting point for inquiry under § 1983 as well." Heck, 512 U.S. at 483 (quoting Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-58, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252,(1978)). The Supreme Court applied this rule in Heck to an inmate's § 1983 suit, which alleged that county prosecutors and a state police officer destroyed evidence, used an unlawful voice identification procedure, and engaged in other misconduct. In deciding whether the inmate could state a claim for those alleged violations, the Supreme Court asked what common-law cause of action was the closest to the inmate's claim and concluded that "malicious prosecution provides the closest analogy ... because unlike the related cause of action for false arrest or imprisonment, it permits damages for confinement imposed pursuant to legal process." Heck, 512 U.S. at 484. Looking to the elements of malicious prosecution, the court held that the inmate's claim could not proceed because one requirement of malicious prosecution is that the prior criminal proceedings must have terminated in the plaintiff's favor, and the inmate in Heck had not successfully challenged his criminal conviction. Id.
Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154, 155-156 (3d Cir.2000).
Thus, "our precedents are clear that § 1983 plaintiffs alleging arrest and prosecution absent probable cause may bring malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment but are entitled to relief only if they are innocent of the crime for which they were prosecuted." Washington v. Hanshaw, 552 F. App'x 169, 173 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154, 156 (3d Cir. 2000)). Therefore, "a plaintiff claiming malicious prosecution must prove actual innocence as an element of his prima facie case." Steele v. City of Erie, 113 F. App'x 456, 459 (3d Cir. 2004).
In this case it is evident from the complaint that this state criminal prosecution did not terminate favorably for the plaintiff since he remains in custody. In the absence of such a favorable termination of the state criminal case, this federal civil rights malicious prosecution lawsuit cannot proceed. In short, this complaint is based upon the fundamentally flawed legal premise that the plaintiff can sue the state for malicious prosecution even though he has not prevailed in the underlying state case. Since this premise is simply incorrect, this complaint fails as a matter of law. See Galloway v. Kane, No. 1:15-CV-1007, 2015 WL 3953112, at *5-6 (M.D. Pa. June 29, 2015).
We recognize that in civil rights cases pro se plaintiffs often should be afforded an opportunity to amend a complaint before the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, See Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007), unless granting further leave to amend would be futile or result in undue delay. Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). In this case, the plaintiff's complaint is, on its face, fundamentally flawed in multiple and profound ways which cannot be remedied. Since these pro se pleadings do not contain sufficient factual recitals to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, these allegations should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, since the factual and legal grounds proffered in support of the complaint make it clear that the plaintiff has no right to relief, granting further leave to amend would be futile or result in undue delay. Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). Therefore, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without further leave to amend.
III. Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff is conditionally GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) but IT IS RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed.
The plaintiff is further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 21st day of December, 2018.
S/Martin C . Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge