Opinion
1:21-cv-154
04-01-2022
KEVIN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL TEL & LINK CORPORATION, et al., Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 1] filed by Plaintiff Kevin Williams be granted. It is further recommended Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 7] be denied and that this action be dismissed for failure to. state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. Report
A. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to pay the filing fee associated with this case. Based upon this averment, it appears that Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to pay the costs and fees of the proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.
B. Standard of Review
Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Among other things, that statute requires the Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F, 3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
C. Background
On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a purported class action against the DOC and Defendant Global Tel & Link Corporation (Global) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at Docket No. 1:17-cr-13. On February 28, 2019, United States District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter adopted the undersigned's recommendation that summary judgment be granted in favor of Global, the lone remaining Defendant in that action, because it was “a private corporation” rather than “a state actor or a private party acting under color of state law” as required for federal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Marmolejos v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, No. 1:17-cr-l 3 (W.D. Pa. 2017), at ECF Nos. 172, 175. The Court also dismissed Plaintiffs state law claims “without prejudice to his right to reassert those claims in the appropriate state court, if so desired.” Id.
According to Plaintiffs pleading, he subsequently initiated a state court action against Global in the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 1-2 at 3.
Plaintiff alleges that this state court action has been pending for two years without a final disposition because “the judge refuses to rule, as the case would make law against the Defendants.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the assigned judge, Defendant Gregory J. Hammond, to enter a final judgment in his favor in that case. Id. at 3. More specifically, Plaintiff seeks to “compel... the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County ... to enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, in [that] case” for “$52, 000.00 dollars.” Id. at 11.
D. Analysis
28 U.S.C. § 1651 vests this Court with jurisdiction to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our jurisdiction] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” A writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy that is typically invoked only in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. Untied States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Critically, however, a writ of mandamus or prohibition in federal court “only authorizes district courts to compel or prohibit federal officials to perform a duty.” Friendly Vessal Therese Anne Steuber v. Walter Inv. Mgmt. Corp., 2017 WL 2243022, at *3 (M.D. Pa. May 23, 2017) (emphasis in original); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed....”)). Consequently, “federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to compel action by a state court.” In re Beckett, 2020 WL 1867975, at *1 (3d Cir. Apr. 14, 2020) (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981)). This is because state courts “are not Tower courts' from this [c]ourt's perspective, and principles of comity and federalism ensure that a federal court 'ordinruily may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to it.'" In re Whiteford, 2013 WL 979413, at*1 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (quoting In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981)). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested writ, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at*3. See also In re Wallace, 405 Fed.Appx. 580, 581 (3d Cir. 2011) ("Wallace asks us to exercise our prohibition or mandamus jurisdiction over a state court to compel it to dismiss his case. We do not have jurisdiction to grant that request.").
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). For the same reasons, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 7] should also be dismissed.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).