Opinion
2:23-cv-00072
05-05-2023
MATTHEW P. DEC, Plaintiff, v. BUTLER PA. COMMISSIONER AND SOLICITOR, BUTLER PA. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, and ATT. BENJAMIN LEVINNE, Defendants.
CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case has been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that, pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed before being served upon the Defendants because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is further recommended that the dismissal be without prejudice and Plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended complaint.
II. Report
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff, Matthew P. Dec, initiated this case on January 17, 2023, by the filing of a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”). (ECF No. 1). Attached to the IFP Motion was a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner), which was lodged pending disposition of the IFP Motion (ECF No. 1-1).
The case was reassigned to the undersigned on April 25, 2023. On April 26, 2023, the IFP motion was granted, (ECF No. 5), and the Clerk of Court docketed the Complaint that same day. (ECF No. 6).
Mr. Dec invokes this Court's jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Named as defendants are “Butler PA. Commissioner and Solicitor, Butler PA District Attorney, and Att. Benjamin Levinne.” All defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.
The Complaint is a cryptic and enigmatic pleading. It appears that Mr. Dec was arrested on September 25, 2020, and he is contending that Defendants have improperly “enhanced the penalties for refusing an unlawful order.” Complaint, Paragraph V. According to the Complaint, “each individual under county policy continues to violate Supreme Court decisions by punishing the exercise of rights and continue to enhance penalties in violation of Birchfield.” Id. at ¶ II (D), Basis for Jurisdiction.
This appears to be a reference to the United States Supreme Court case of Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016).
B. Discussion
1. Pre-Service Dismissals of Pro Se Complaints - Standard of Review
While 28 U.S.C. § 1915 authorizes litigants, like Mr. Dec, to proceed in forma pauperis, such status is a privilege which may be denied when abused. Because Mr. Dec has been granted IFP status, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) apply to his Complaint. The Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a review of the Complaint to determine whether any claims are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. In performing the Court's mandated function of sua sponte review of complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a federal district court applies the same standard as applied to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Brodzki v. Tribune Co., 481 Fed.Appx. 705 (3d Cir. 2012) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard to claim dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)).
2. The Current Complaint Fails as a Matter of Law
In this case, the deficiencies in the Complaint are numerous. At the outset, dismissal of this Complaint is warranted because the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8's basic direction that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 8 is proper when a complaint “left the defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of action],” Binsack v. Lackawanna County Prison, 438 Fed.Appx. 158 (3d Cir. 2011), or when the complaint is so “rambling and unclear” as to defy response. Tillio v. Spiess, 441 Fed.Appx. 109 (3d Cir. 2011).
Further, the Complaint is riddled with deficiencies. First, while the Complaint contains a conclusory statement that Mr. Dec's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated, it fails to provide specific details of precisely how his civil rights were violated. In civil rights cases, more than conclusory and vague allegations are required to state a cause of action under Section 1983. Simply stating that Defendants have “enhanced the penalties for refusing an unlawful order” is not enough.
Next, the Complaint fails to describe how each named defendant is involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The Complaint should be specific about the particulars of the event, each defendant's misconduct, and how such misconduct resulted in a violation or denial of the civil right at issue. Third, Plaintiff's description of the injuries he has sustained as a result of the Defendants' alleged conduct is woefully deficient. It is not enough to simply allege “they ruined by business reputation and cause great [illegible] of hatred causing Plaintiff to curse all day and dream of murder every night.” Complaint, Paragraph IV - Injuries. The Complaint must state as specifically as possible the actual injury suffered from the action of the defendants that resulted in the alleged civil rights violation. And last, the Complaint does not contain a coherent prayer for relief. The relief required must be related specifically to the injury suffered.
Since the Complaint in its current form fails as a matter of law, it is recommended that the Complaint be dismissed. Yet, the Court must allow amendment by the plaintiff in a civil rights case brought under § 1983 before dismissing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), irrespective of whether it is requested, unless doing so would be “inequitable or futile.” Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007).
III. Admonition Against Flagrant and Improper Conduct
The Complaint filed by Mr. Dec includes profane exclamatory statements, apparently directed to the Chief Judge of this Court as well as to the Defendants. Mr. Dec is advised that the Court expects all litigants, including those proceeding pro se, to behave themselves with proper decorum and civility. Mr. Dec is advised that the Court will strike future pleadings containing any profanity or similarly disparaging comments directed towards any member of this Court, Court staff, or other litigants. Mr. Dec is cautioned that, as a litigant in this Court, he is expected to behave with appropriate civility, no matter his personal opinion of the Court or other litigants, and no matter how strongly that opinion is held. Mr. Dec is advised that failure to behave in a proper manner may result in stricter sanctions being imposed on Mr. Dec or restrictions or conditions placed on his ability to make filings with the Court.
IV. Recommendation
For the reasons set forth herein, it is recommended that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that Mr. Dec be granted leave to file an amended complaint.
Mr. Dec is permitted to file written 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, Mr. Dec must file objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by May 25, 2023. Mr. Dec 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) (quoting Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). 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).
Matthew P. Dec 215 Campbell Ave. Butler, PA 16001 (via U.S. First Class Mail)