Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-01702
10-29-2018
DONALD ROBERT CONKLIN, IV, Plaintiff, v. JOHN P. BOHRMAN, Defendant.
(MUNLEY, J.)
() REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the Court is a complaint seeking damages (Doc. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), both filed by pro se prisoner-Plaintiff Donald Robert Conklin, IV (hereinafter referred to as "Conklin") on August 28, 2018. At the time of the filing of his complaint, Conklin was incarcerated at Monroe County Correctional Facility, located in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). In his complaint, Conklin seeks damages against the lone Defendant, Detective John P. Bohrman ("Detective Bohrman"), for allegedly violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1). The Court has conducted its statutorily-mandated screening of the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons provided herein, it is respectfully recommended that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be GRANTED, but that the complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. SECTION 1915 STANDARDS
When liberally construed, it appears that Conklin also attempts to assert a claim for defamation against Detective Bohrman. However, it is unclear whether Conklin intends to bring such a cause of action under Pennsylvania State Law or under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is obligated, prior to service of process, to screen a civil complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); James v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 230 Fed. Appx. 195, 197 (3d Cir. 2007) (not precedential). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Mitchell v. Dodrill, 696 F. Supp. 2d 454, 471 (M.D. Pa. 2010). The Court has a similar obligation with respect to actions brought in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In this case, because Conklin is a prisoner suing a governmental employee and brings his suit in forma pauperis, both provisions apply. In performing this mandatory screening function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell, 696 F. Supp. 2d at 471; Banks v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 568 F. Supp. 2d 579, 588 (W.D. Pa. 2008).
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has 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 (3d Cir. 2008)] and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (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, a 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, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). 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). 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 action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a trial court must assess whether a complaint states facts upon which relief can be granted, and should "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). "[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In addition to these pleading rules, a civil complaint must comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, which defines what a complaint should contain:
(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 pro se plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint must recite factual allegations which 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. Indeed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires a "showing that 'the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Phi lli ps, 515 F.3d at 233 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545).
With the aforementioned standards in mind, a document filed pro se is "to be liberally construed." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may also consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as "documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). Further, the Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). II. DISCUSSION
When liberally construed, Conklin alleges Detective Bohrman violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. (Doc. 1, at 3). Thus, although not expressly alleged, Conklin appears to bring a federal civil rights claim against Detective Bohrman pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a private cause of action with respect to violations of federal constitutional rights. The statute provides in pertinent part:
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, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .
Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but instead provides remedies for rights established elsewhere. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985). To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution. Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995).
Without addressing the merits of Conklin's Section 1983 claim, the Court recommends that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. To withstand dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must satisfy the minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 355 (3d Cir. 2005). Specifically, Rule 8(a) provides that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . . ; (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 . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(d)(1) further instructs that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
Even when liberally construed, as is necessary for pro se complaints, Conklin's complaint is plainly deficient under the pleading standards set forth in Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Indeed, the entirety of Conklin's three-sentence complaint reads:
[Detective Bohrman] unlawfully arrested the Plaintiff without sufficient probable cause to do so and put him on the news twice for crimes he did not commit. "The news" means Blue Ridge Communications Channel 13 televised news broadcasts from September 27, 2017 [at] 17:00 hours and October 25, 2017 [at] 17:00 hours.
...
Plaintiff hereby requests your honorable court to award punitive damages in an amount not less than $25,000 for being unlawfully arrested, maliciously prosecuted, and having his reputation defamed.
(Doc. 1, at 4-5).
As it stands, Conklin's complaint fails to identify any facts in support of his claims against Detective Bohrman. Rather, Conklin relies solely upon conclusory allegations to formulate his complaint, which this Court is not obligated to accept as true, and are insufficient under modern pleading standards. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Further, although detailed factual allegations are not necessary, a "plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Thus, such pleading deficiencies fall well short of the standards enumerated in Rule 8 of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Accordingly, the Court respectfully recommends that Conklin's claims against Detective Borhman be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as the complaint fails to state a claim against him upon which relief can be granted. III. LEAVE TO AMEND
The Court further notes, without deciding, that the complaint may also be subject to dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (finding that "when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed...") and for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995) ("To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution.").
The Court recognizes that pro se plaintiffs often should be afforded an opportunity to amend a complaint before the complaint is dismissed with prejudice, see Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 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, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2004). As the complaint in its current form does not clearly set forth any claims against Detective Borhman, dismissal is warranted. However, so as to preserve Conklin's rights as a pro se litigant, the Court will allow him to file a single, unified, legible complaint setting forth his factual allegations and legal claims in a manner that can be reviewed by the Court and, if necessary, answered by Detective Bohrman.
Conklin is advised that the amended complaint must be a pleading that stands by itself without reference to the original complaint. Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992) (emphasis added). The amended complaint must also establish the existence of specific actions taken by Detective Bohrman which have resulted in identifiable constitutional violations, to the extent Conklin intends to bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the amended complaint must be "simple, concise, and direct" as required by Rule 8(d)(1) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. It should also be limited to those claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as averred, albeit vaguely, in the original complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with the aforementioned requirements may result in the dismissal of this action in its entirety. IV. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that:
1. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
2. Plaintiff be given thirty (30) days to amend his complaint that clearly reasserts his claims in accordance with Rule 8(a) and 8(d)(1) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and the directives of the instant Report and Recommendation;
3. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) be GRANTED; and
4. The matter be remanded to the undersigned for further proceedings.
Dated: October 29, 2018
BY THE COURT:
/s/ _________
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated October 29, 2018.
Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
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.
Dated: October 29, 2018
/s/ _________
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge