Opinion
2:21-CV-00786-CRE
08-09-2022
PARIS L. JAMES, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; MARK CAPOZZA, SUPERINTENDENT; SCOTT NICKELSON, ARMI, JOSEPH TREMPUS, SHELLY MANKEY, RHONDA HOUSE, FACILITIES GRIEVANCE COUNSELOR; LOIS ALLAN, GERALD DILLINGER, SHOUP, JANE DOE, HEARING EXAMINER; SCOTT RIDDLE, MELANIE NAGY, SGT. SHEETZ, SGT. WILES, SGT. REINHEART, CAPT. TIFT, LT. JOHNS, C/O KING, C/O J. SMITH, JOHN DOE #4, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #5, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #6, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #7, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #8, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #9, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #10, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #2, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; AND JOHN DOE #3, SERGEANT; Defendants,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Cynthia Reed Eddy, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
I. RECOMMENDATION
This civil rights action was initiated by pro se Plaintiff Paris L. James (“Plaintiff”) against numerous Defendants for alleged violations of his civil rights while incarcerated in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Defendants Lois Allen, Armi, Mark Capozza, Gerald Dillinger, Rhonda House, Johns, King, Shelly Mankey, Melanie Nagy, Scott Nickelson, Reinheart, Scott Riddle, Sheetz, Shoup, J. Smith, Tift, Joseph Trempus, John E. Wetzel, and Wiles. (ECF No. 26).
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the motion is fully briefed and ripe for consideration. (ECF Nos. 27, 46, 47).
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) be granted and Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to conform with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and he be provided the opportunity to amend his complaint consistent with this recommendation.
II. REPORT
a. Background
Plaintiff's Complaint raises myriad different claims against approximately thirty-two separate Defendants, ten of whom are John Doe Defendants. Plaintiff's Complaint spans sixty-four (64) pages and includes 342 separate paragraphs and includes fifty-four (54) separate paragraphs that purport to be causes of action against the Defendants. Substantively, Plaintiff's complaint includes allegations spanning from 2019 through 2021 and includes complaints about the incidents of prison life. See Compl. at ¶¶ 33-35; 52; 66; 71 (unspecified complaints that he was kept from his personal property upon transfer and sought the facilities video record all handling of his personal property); ¶¶ 39, 44-46, 109, 166 (statements and purported threats made to Plaintiff by corrections officers); ¶ 60 (threats made by inmates); ¶ 54 (complaining about his cell assignment); ¶ 56 (other inmates listening to his phone conversations); ¶ 82 (not giving Plaintiff a full meal on one occasion); ¶¶ 86-90 (a purported cell extraction and cell search/confiscation of property); ¶¶ 92; 93-95 (denials of unspecified grievances); ¶¶ 94-96 (unspecified denial of library use); ¶¶ 109-111 (Plaintiff's threats to go on a hunger strike); ¶¶ 113-117 (unspecified complaints about the hearing review board process); ¶¶ 124-25 (confiscating Plaintiff's television); ¶ 128 (not letting Plaintiff work in the kitchen); ¶¶ 130-133 (not maintaining social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly when Plaintiff used the common telephone area); ¶¶ 139-170 (an incident in which he collapsed in his cell and was taken to the infirmary).
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for myriad reasons, the most applicable is for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Because it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to conform to Rule 8, only that analysis follows.
No recommendation is made regarding the substance of Plaintiff's purported claims. Counsel for Defendants have meticulously interpreted and decoded Plaintiff's complaint and have raised substantive arguments for those claims they consider asserted by Plaintiff. Because no recommendation is made on Defendants' substantive arguments, such arguments raised may be raised in a subsequent motion.
b. Standard of Review
i. Pro Se Pleadings
A pro se pleading is held to a less stringent standard than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). As a result, a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be construed liberally, Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002), so “as to do substantial justice.” Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). While pro se litigants are afforded this leniency, they “do not have a right to general legal advice from judges,” and “courts need not provide substantive legal advice to pro se litigants” because pro se litigants must be treated “the same as any other litigant.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
i. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While Plaintiff is afforded leniency in his filings as a pro se litigant, he is not exempt from satisfying basic pleading requirements. Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. Rule 8(e) further provides that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1). “Taken together, Rules 8(a) and 8(e)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1217 at 169 (2d ed. 1990).
If the complaint is “illegible or incomprehensible”, Scibelli v. Lebanon Cnty., 219 Fed.Appx. 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007), “is not only of an unwieldly length, but it is also largely unintelligible”, Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 Fed.Appx. 785, 787 (3d Cir. 2007), or “is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised”, Tillio v. Spiess, 441 Fed.Appx. 109, 110 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)), it is necessary to dismiss the complaint for violating Rule 8. See also Mincy v. Klem, 303 Fed.Appx. 106 (3d Cir. 2008); Rhett v. New Jersey State Superior Ct., 260 Fed.Appx. 513 (3d Cir. 2008); Bennett-Nelson v. Louisiana Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 450 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005). “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straight forward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003). Similarly, dismissal is warranted under Rule 8 when a complaint leaves the “defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constitute[s]” a cause of action, Binsack v. Lackawanna Cnty. Prison, 438 Fed.Appx. 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011), or when the complaint is so “rambling and unclear” as to not permit defendants to present an appropriate response. Tillio, 441 Fed.Appx. 109.
c. Discussion
In its current form, Plaintiff's complaint fails as a matter of law for violations Rule 8 and must be dismissed. Plaintiff's complaint is excessive in length, spanning fifty-three (53) singlespaced pages with 342 separate paragraphs. While excessive length alone is not determinative, the substance of Plaintiff's complaint is rambling, ambiguous, nearly incomprehensible and does not give any Defendant fair notice of the claims asserted against them. For example, while Plaintiff's Complaint begins with recounting an issue with him not being given access to his personal property upon transfer to a new facility, it quickly divulges into Plaintiff recounting the incidents of everyday prison life related to his conditions of confinement and including varying unrelated examples of what Plaintiff claims constitutes unconstitutional conduct. Additionally, the Complaint includes fifty-four (54) separate paragraphs that purport to be causes of action against the Defendants in which each paragraph includes multiple separate causes of action and tangential references to several Amendments of the United States Constitution and references to Defendants. Compl. (ECF No. 6) at ¶¶ 173-227). The structure and substance of Plaintiff's Complaint makes it nearly impossible for each Defendant to comprehend what cause of action Plaintiff asserts against them and would force each of the Defendants to speculate which claim is brought against them and would devolve into a dichotomy paradox in which each Defendant is forced to defend against every possible cause of action that exists in modern-day jurisprudence. As the complaint currently stands, “[o]nly through superhuman patience, effort, and insight could any attorney review the allegations of the Complaint and make paragraph-by-paragraph responses.” Mendez v. Draham, 182 F.Supp.2d 430, 433 (D.N.J. 2002). Plaintiff's ambiguous factual averments and conflated causes of action make it nearly impossible to comprehend what Plaintiff is suing for and is neither “ ‘simple, concise, [nor] direct.' ” In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Rule 8(e)). Thus, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice to afford him the opportunity to amend and cure these defects. Rhett, 260 Fed.Appx. at 516.
For example, one of Plaintiff's causes of action reads as follows: “Defendants Capozza, Trempus, Armi, House, L. Allen, House(sic), Dillinger violated plaintiff's eighth(sic) amendment(sic) to(sic) humane conditions of confinement, where defendants failed to act upon notice, knowledge and observation of plaintiffs(sic) subjection to involuntary servitude, denial of equal treatment, enjoyment of rights privileges where defendants and their agents through threat of retaliation denied plaintiff eligibility of compensation for work and proper protective equipment upon which to do said work which threaten plaintiffs(sic) health and safety and which similarly situated inmates received in retaliation for plaintiffs(sic) exercise of free speech protected conduct which constitutes a violation of plaintiffs(sic) eighth(sic) amendment(sic) united(sic) states(sic) constitutional rights.” Compl. (ECF No. 6) at ¶ 221. Plaintiff's additional fifty-three (53) causes of action read substantially similar.
Plaintiff is cautioned that if he is allowed to amend his complaint, he is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) “to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the legal underpinnings” of his causes of action before submitting an amended complaint to this court, and if he fails to do so, could face sanctions. Karpov v. Karpov, 307 F.R.D. 345, 348 (D. Del. 2015). Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant does not shield him from sanctions under Rule 11. Taylor v. Messmer, No. 02:09-CV-1116, 2010 WL 545892, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2010) (imposing sanctions on pro se plaintiff for filing a “barrage” of civil and administrative cases against the same defendants raising the same issues); Lai v. Dist. V-C Ethics Comm., No. CIV A 06-2661 WJM, 2006 WL 3677933, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2006) (imposing sanctions on pro se plaintiff and issuing an injunction barring her from filing future related suits without prior permission of court); Martin v. Farmers First Bank, 151 F.R.D. 44, 49 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (imposing sanctions on pro se plaintiffs for failure to investigate the basis of their claims); Calesnick v. Redevelopment Auth. of City of Philadelphia, 696 F.Supp. 1053, 1056 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (imposing sanctions on pro se plaintiffs and issuing an injunction barring them from filing future related suits). Plaintiff must “stop, think, investigate and research” the substance of his claims before filing his amended complaint. Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp., 835 F.2d 479, 482 (3d Cir. 1987). If the filing of a pleading, including an amended complaint, constitutes “abusive litigation or misuse of the court's process[,]” it may be dismissed. Simmerman v. Corino, 27 F.3d 58, 62 (3d Cir. 1994).
If Plaintiff is provided with the opportunity to amend his complaint consistent with the foregoing, he must prepare his amended complaint on the approved form, a copy of which is included here, must include all defendants and causes of action, and must set forth clearly identified causes of action in separate paragraphs that both identify Plaintiff's legal theories, facts suggestive of the proscribed conduct, and which defendants he asserts the specific cause of action against. His amended complaint must be one stand-alone document without reference to any other document filed in this case. Plaintiff is cautioned that the opportunity to file an amended complaint does not invite enlarging the lawsuit by filing new allegations not related to the allegations in the original complaint or by adding defendants not related to the allegations in the original complaint. Inclusion of new allegations and claims unrelated to those set forth in the original complaint, or his failure to submit an amended complaint that is simple, concise, and direct will be considered a failure to comply with an Order of Court and may lead to the dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall further comply with the attached instructions.
d. Conclusion
For these reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. ??) be granted, Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and he be given an opportunity to amend his complaint consistent with this recommendation.
Any party 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, because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by August 26, 2022, and Defendants, because they are electronically registered parties, must file objections by August 23, 2022. The parties are 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).
Honorable William S. Stickman, United States District Judge
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. Caption and Heading
The caption must include the name of the court, the parties, their capacities (i.e., whether they are being sued in their individual or representative (official) capacity), and the title of the pleading (i.e., Amended Complaint). Plaintiff must place his full name at the top left of the amended complaint and also list the names of each individual defendant. Plaintiff must name as defendants only those persons who are responsible for the alleged constitutional violation(s).
Plaintiff should only name defendants who had personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (“A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs.”). If Plaintiff is unaware of a defendant's name, then he may list that defendant as a John/Jane Doe.
B. Parties
As the person initiating the lawsuit, Plaintiff must identify himself as such. Also, for each defendant named in the amended complaint, Plaintiff should that list that defendant's current address and description of employment (i.e., Secretary, Superintendent, Corrections Officer, Grievance Officer, etc.).
C. Jurisdiction
Because federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, Plaintiff must inform the Court why the case should be heard in federal court rather than in state court or some other forum. If Plaintiff's action is generally one for a violation of civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will normally be the basis for the claim. In order for Plaintiff's action to be heard in federal court under Section 1983, he must be able to show that the defendant(s), at the time of the claims alleged in the amended complaint, were acting under the authority or color of state law.
D. Statement of Claim
This is the time to present the facts of the case: what happened, where it happened, when it happened, how it happened, and who was involved. In this section, Plaintiff should write a summary of the facts relevant to this lawsuit. Additionally, any document referenced to in this section must be cited as an exhibit and attached at the end of the amended complaint.
In this section, Plaintiff must provide specific details of precisely how his civil rights were allegedly violated. He should note that, in civil rights cases, more than conclusory and vague allegations are required to state a cause of action under Section 1983. Plaintiff should clearly describe how each named defendant is involved in the alleged constitutional violation(s). Plaintiff should not include legal argument in his amended complaint. Citations to case law and other statutes are not appropriate in the complaint, but rather may be included in a response to a dispositive motion or at the time of trial. However, Plaintiff 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.
Where the amended complaint includes more than one incident, Plaintiff should clearly distinguish between them by preparing a separate description - usually a paragraph - for each incident. Each incident should be identified as a separate count, and each count must include appropriate facts and evidence in support of the claims made in the count. Each incident must be clearly and specifically described; it should include the relevant time, date, and location. Each incident description also should clearly identify the relevant defendant and what that defendant's role was in the incident. Additionally, the amended complaint should set forth factual allegations that, taken together, satisfy the elements of the cause of action.
Plaintiff should also note that courts have consistently held that a “prisoner's allegations of verbal harassment, unaccompanied by another injury, are not cognizable under § 1983.” Sears v. McCoy, 815 Fed.Appx. 668, 670 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1291 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2001); DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000); McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983) (explaining that mere threatening language and gestures of a custodial officer are not constitutional violations).
Plaintiff is cautioned that the opportunity to file an amended complaint is not an invitation to enlarge the lawsuit by filing new allegations not related to the allegations in the original complaint or by adding defendants not related to the allegations in the original complaint. Inclusion of new allegations and claims unrelated to those set forth in the original Complaint will be considered a failure to comply with an Order of Court and will result in the dismissal of the Amended Complaint.
E. Injury
Plaintiff must state as specifically as possible the actual injury suffered from the action of the defendants that resulted in the alleged civil rights violation. Simply stating that his civil rights have been violated is insufficient.
F. Request for Relief
Plaintiff must describe for the Court the relief he is seeking as a result of this lawsuit. The relief requested must be related specifically to the injury suffered. However, Plaintiff should be aware that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) limits a prisoner's ability to pursue a federal civil action for mental or emotional injuries suffered while in custody.
G. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Plaintiff should be aware that under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), he must fully exhaust all available remedies that are available to him before pursuing a civil rights complaint concerning prison conditions.
H. Previous Lawsuits
Plaintiff must alert the Court to any other case in which he was a party that may be connected with the case he is now filing. Plaintiff should inform the Court of any and all previously filed cases that include some of the same facts and events he relies on for this case.
I. Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by an individual attorney of record or by the pro se party. Therefore, Plaintiff must sign his amended complaint and when doing so he is making a declaration under law to the Court that everything in the amended complaint is true.