Opinion
Civil Action 23-1242
06-05-2024
MELISSA EDMONDS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID URBAN, Cashier, Defendant.
Joy Flowers Conti District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Re: ECF No. 8
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to filing a state law claim in state court, if appropriate.
II. REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Melissa Edmonds (“Plaintiff') was, at the time of filing, confined at the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is unclear from the record whether she was held there as a pre-trial detainee or as a convicted prisoner. On July 10, 2023, this Court received Plaintiffs Complaint, without filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. Due to irregularities with the Complaint, Plaintiff was ordered to provide additional information indicating whether she wished to proceed in this Court, or the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff eventually responded on September 13,2023. ECF Nos. 2, 3, and 4.
An order directing Plaintiff to correct various filing deficiencies (the “Deficiency Order”) was issued on September 19, 2023. ECF No. 5. Since then, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, and has moved for leave to proceed IFP. ECF Nos. 7 and 10. Also, she has been released from ACJ. ECF No. 13. However, as of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has never fully complied with the Deficiency Order. ECF Nos. 9 and 12. However, because her release from custody obviated the need to correct the remaining filing deficiencies, leave to proceed IFP was granted on May 21, 2024. ECF No. 14.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongful removed $21.39 from her trust account. ECF No. 8 at 2-3. She alleges that she grieved the removal, but to no avail. Id. at 2.
The allegations in the Amended Complaint generally track with those in the initial Complaint See ECF No 1-1 Plaintiff named Warden Harper in the initial Complaint, but only Defendant Urban was named in the Amended Complaint. However, even if Plaintiff meant to name Harper in the Amended Complaint as well, it would not affect the disposition of her claim.
B. Applicable Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915 establishes the criteria for allowing an action to proceed IFP. Section 1915(e) requires the federal courts to review complaints filed by persons that are proceeding tn forma pauperis and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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)(B). Thus, a court must dismiss, sua sponte, a complaint that lacks arguable merit in fact or law. Stackhouse v. Crocker, 266 Fed.Appx. 189, 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
The standard for reviewing a complaint under this section 1915(e)(2)(B) is the same as that for determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Banks v. Mozingo, No. 08-004, 2009 WL 497572, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2009). Under that Rule, dismissal is appropriate if, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accepting all factual allegations as true, no relief could be granted under any “reasonable reading of the complaint” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). A complaint must be dismissed even if the claim to relief is “conceivable,” because a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A court must employ less stringent standards when considering pro se pleadings than when judging the work product of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520(1972). In a Section 1983 action, a court must liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings and “apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether a pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.” Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)). “Since this is a § 1983 action, the [pro se] plaintiffs are entitled to relief if their complaint sufficiently alleges deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution.” Higgins, 293 F.3d at 688 (quoting Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)). That said, it is not proper for a court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts which [he or she] has not alleged, or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Assoc.'d Gem Contractors of California, Inc, v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). A court further need not accept inferences drawn by a plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts as set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys, v. Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 and 157-58 (3d Cir. 2004).
Finally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that, in civil rights cases, a court must give a plaintiff the opportunity to amend a deficient complaint - regardless of whether the plaintiff requests to do so - when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, unless doing so would be inequitable or futile. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp, v. Pote Concrete Contractors. Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007).
C. Legal Analysis
Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that Defendant Urban rmproperly or incorrectly removed money from her inmate trust account. ECF No. 8 at 2-3. She allegedly grieved the deduction, but to no avail. Id. at 2.
This claim arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [A] prisoner has a protected property interest in the funds held in his inmate account.” Hale v. Beard, 168 Fed.Appx. 532, 534 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 693 (3d Cir. 2002); Tillman v. Lebanon Cnty. Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 421 (3d Cir. 2000)).
However, such a claim necessarily fails “if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available for the loss.” Hudson v. Farmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). This applies to pre-trial detainees as well as convicted prisoners. See Shareef v. Moore, No. 18-1494, 2020 WL 1445878, at *3-4 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 25,2020), affd, 844 Fed.Appx. 487 (3d Cir. 2021) (dismissing due process claims of pre-trial detainee for property confiscated by prison staff).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a prison's grievance procedure provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See, e.g. Tillman, 221 F.3d at 422. This is true even if Plaintiff ultimately is dissatisfied with the outcome of the grievance process. Iseley v. Hom, No. 96-5385, 1996 WL 510090, at *6 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Further, it is well- recognized that an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists in Pennsylvania through a tort lawsuit in state court. Ray v, Rogers, No. 12-985, 2014 WL 1235905, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2014). .
As such, Plaintiff's allegations related to the money removed from her inmate trust account are insufficient to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Section 1983, and should be dismissed. Additionally, as it appears that she cannot prevail, dismissal of her federal claim for lost property should be with prejudice to amendment; however, dismissal should be without prejudice to refiling in state court under state law, if appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth herein, it respectfully is recommended that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to filing a state law claim in state court, if appropriate.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v, Lehman, 637 F.3d 187,193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2,