Opinion
1:22-cv-334
10-30-2023
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff v. EDWARD SPAGEL, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that the amended complaint fded by Plaintiff Michael B. Williams, Jr. be dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. Report
A. Standard
Because he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 16, Williams' claims are 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)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his allegations, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Moreover, under the 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).
B. Procedural and factual background
Williams initiated this action on November 3, 2022. ECF No. 1. In his initial complaint, Williams appeared to assert claims stemming from several unrelated events: his arrest and subsequent prosecution in 2012; an incident in 2017 in which his prescription eyeglasses were broken during a use of force by prison guards; and a retaliation incident occurring in 2020. See ECF No. 1-2. He named approximately 150 individuals as Defendants. Id.
Upon initial screening, the Court noted that Williams' pleading suffered from several critical deficiencies. Among other things, Williams' complaint lacked factual detail, relied heavily on legal conclusions, failed to identify most of the Defendants or explain how they were involved in allegedly violating his rights, and sought relief from individuals who appeared to be entitled to absolute judicial or prosecutorial immunity. ECF No. 10. The Court also advised Williams that any claims based on events occurring prior to November 3, 2020, were likely barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. Rather than recommend dismissal at that time, the Court offered Williams an opportunity to file a curative amendment.
Williams complied with the Court's order on April 10, 2023. ECF No. 12. In his proposed amendment, Williams appears to assert a false arrest and malicious prosecution claim based on a 2012 arrest and an excessive force claim based on an incident that occurred in prison in 2017. ECF Nos. 12, 12-1. As with his initial pleading, Williams' allegations primarily take the form of broad legal conclusions and sweeping averments of misconduct, most of which lack context or coherence.
One representative portion, for example, states that: “the defendants' unlawful conduct of theft by deception in the unlawful conduct of perjury by corroboration on the stand at the finding of the trier of fact in the form present sense of impression and prior bad acts of filing false police reports as a firmly rooted hearsay exception in bearing particularized guarantees of trustworthiness in the confrontation by the witnesses against the Plaintiffs as the defendants' at a criminal trial.” ECF No. 12-1 at 2.
As best as the Court can tell, Williams is primarily challenging the outcome of his 2012 criminal arrest and 2014 conviction. Williams accuses a host of individuals of fabricating police reports, misrepresenting investigatory evidence, and offering perjured testimony in the course of securing his conviction. See, generally, ECF No. 12. He indicates that these incidents took place on March 18, 2012, June 17, 2012, September 26, 2012, and January 6-17, 2014. Id. Notably, Williams also acknowledges filing a previous § 1983 action in this Court raising the same claims. See Civil Action 1:15-cv-00304-SPB-RAL (asserting claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation against many of the same individuals). A review of the docket in that action indicates that the Court dismissed Williams' claims based, inter alia, on the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity and the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Id.
The latter appears to be the date of Williams' criminal trial.
In an entirely unrelated incident, Williams contends that several security guards at an unidentified prison physically assaulted him by “slamming [him] to the ground and breaking his prescription eyeglasses” on July 20, 2017. ECF No. 12 at 17. He suggests that other Defendants covered up for the attack by issuing him false misconducts. Id.
C. Analysis
1. Statute of limitations
The length of the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is governed by the personal injury tort law of the state where the cause of action arose, which in Pennsylvania is two years. Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007)); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2). Where the viability of a statute of limitations defense can be clearly discerned from the complaint, the Third Circuit has indicated that summary dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e) is appropriate. McPherson v. United States, 392 Fed.Appx. 938, 943 (3d Cir. 2010) (“We agree that when a statute-of-limitations defense is apparent from the face of the complaint, a court may sua sponte dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915”); Smith v. Delaware County Court, 260 Fed.Appx. 454, 455 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[A]lthough the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under § 1915(e) where the defense is obvious from the complaint and no development of the factual record is required.”); Villanueva v. Lycoming County Prison Owner/Owners, 2013 WL 572561, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2013) (“[W]hen conducting a screening review of a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may consider whether the complaint is barred under the applicable statute of limitations.”).
Here, Williams' complaint is dated November 3, 2022. ECF No. 1. His arrest occurred in 2012, and his trial took place in 2014. The excessive force incident in prison took place in 2017. Because each of these events took place prior to November 3, 2020, the earliest possible date on which any allegation in the complaint could be deemed timely, they are barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 actions.
2. Res judicata
Even if Williams' allegations were timely, the majority of his claims have already been resolved through prior litigation. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating the same claims against the same parties after those claims have already been decided on the merits. Davis v. County of Allegheny, 2018 WL 4005827, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2018). Res judicata applies when a defendant demonstrates that “there has been (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same causes of action.” Hickox v. County of Blair, 591 Fed.Appx. 107, 109 (3d Cir. 2014).
Williams readily admits that his attack on the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction have been previously litigated. In Williams v. Spagel, Williams sued many of the same Defendants for the same misconduct alleged in the instant case. See Williams, Case No. 1:15-cv-304 (dismissing Williams' malicious prosecution and false arrest claims based on his 2012 arrest and 2014 conviction as untimely). The prior lawsuit raised the same claims based on the same facts at issue here and culminated in a final judgment in favor of the Defendants. The applicability of res judicata is crystal clear.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Williams' entire complaint be dismissed as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, because Williams' claims are plainly barred by the statute of limitations and res judicata, any attempt at amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Bressi v. Gembic, 2018 WL 3596859, at *7 (M.D. Pa. July 2, 2018) (denying leave to amend where claims “clearly and universally lack merit and are legally frivolous”). The Clerk should be directed to terminate this action, with prejudice.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must 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 the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).