Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-cv-00147-CRE
08-28-2023
WILLIAMS DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. DR. MCCLAINN, MOSHANNON VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FDC; AND UNKNOWN NAMED AGENT, MOSHANNON VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FDC; Defendants.
Stephanie L. Haines, United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Cynthia Reed Eddy, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that, under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff Williams Daniels's Amended Complaint be pre-service dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because amendment would be futile. It is further recommended that Plaintiff's pending motion to amend ECF No. 26 be denied as frivolous.
II. Report
i. Factual Background
Plaintiff initiated the present action pro se alleging several civil rights violations while incarcerated at Moshannon Valley Correctional (Federal Detention Center, “FDC”). Plaintiff maintains he was sexually assaulted in 2006 by Defendant, Dr. Mcclainn. Am. Compl. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff also names as a Defendant an unknown (or unnamed) agent of Moshannon Valley Correctional (FDC) alleging that after Plaintiff told the unknown agent of this alleged sexual assault, the unknown agent threatened Plaintiff. Id.
The Amended Complaint additionally states that Plaintiff filed a previous lawsuit against Dr. Mcclainn in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. A search thereof does not uncover any other case(s) filed by Plaintiff related to this matter. ECF No. 12.
The Amended Complaint seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens asserting violations of Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. ECF No. 12.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Plaintiff recently requested leave of court to add defendants. ECF No. 26 (“Motion to Add Defendants”). The Motion to Add Defendants includes: “the Geo Group group.com who contracted [with] the Moshannon Valley Correctional to the Federal Bureau of Prison;” “the Federal Bureau of Prisons who contracted [with] the Moshannon Valley Correctional prior to the assault”; “the Texas Law Firm that operated the Moshannon Valley Correctional prior to the assault”; and “the Warden of Moshannon Valley Correctional prior to the assault.” ECF No. 26.
ii. Procedural History
Plaintiff began this case on August 21, 2022, filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 1, within the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. And on that date the complaint was filed. ECF No. 2. Venue was transferred to this Court on September 6, 2022. ECF No. 4.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 21, 2022, which remains the operative pleading. ECF No. 12. Service has not been effectuated. ECF No. 24.
III. Discussion
i. Plaintiff's Claim is Time-Barred and Should be Dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Dismissal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim because the allegations asserted are time-barred. ECF No. 12.
In Pennsylvania, the applicable statute of limitations for claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens is two years. Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360 (3d Cir. 2000); Brown v. Tollackson, 314 Fed.Appx. 407, 408 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“The statute of limitations for a Bivens claim, as for claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is borrowed from the forum state's personal injury statute.”); 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524. (Pennsylvania's statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years). “The statute of limitations begins to run ‘from the time the cause of action accrued,' which we have previously interpreted to mean when ‘the first significant event necessary to make the claim suable' occurs.” Lake, 232 F.3d at 366 (quoting Ross v. Johns-Manville Corp., 766 F.2d 823, 826 (3d Cir. 1985)).
This case was initiated on August 21, 2022. The allegations against Dr. Mcclainn of Moshannon Correctional Facility (FDC) and the unknown agent of Moshannon Correctional Facility (FDC) (collectively “Defendants”) arose from an alleged sexual assault and threats that took place in 2006. Based on the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, the allegations against Defendants accrued in 2006 and because Plaintiff did not file a complaint until 2022, his claims are time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Thus, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants and all claims should be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as amendment would be futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
ii. The Motion to Add Defendants is Frivolous and Should be Denied Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
Plaintiff's request for amendment, ECF No. 26, is frivolous and should be denied. After the prescribed period to amend, a party may only amend his pleading with the opposing party's written consent or by leave of court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) (emphasis added). Rule 15(a)(1)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” See also Fortran v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993). But “‘[a]mong the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.'” Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig. 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997)). A proposed amendment is futile and the denial for leave to amend is proper if the amendment is frivolous or advances a claim or defense that is facially legally insufficient. See 6 CHARLES A. WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, AND PROCEDURE § 1487 (3d ed. 2023); Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 231 (3d Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff seeks to amend the Amended Complaint to add the following as Defendants, “the Geo Group group.com”; “the Federal Bureau of Prisons”; “the Texas Law Firm that operated the Moshannon Valley Correctional”; and “the Warden of Moshannon Valley Correctional.” ECF No. 26. Although Plaintiff is pro se and thus entitled to a more liberal construction by the Court, any amendment to this alleged incident of sexual assault in 2006 would be frivolous as it is clearly barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d at 115 (“Futility means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”) (internal quotation omitted). Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants be denied. ECF No. 26.
The Amended Complaint is time-barred and should be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as amendment would be futile. It is further recommended that the Motion to Add Defendants be denied as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
IV. Conclusion
For all the above reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Amended Complaint be pre-service dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Grayson, 293 F.3d at 114. It is further recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants, ECF No. 26, be denied as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff may file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Plaintiff may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation by September 14, 2023, Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). See also EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).