Opinion
2:21-CV-00786-WSS-CRE
12-20-2023
PARIS L. JAMES, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; MARK CAPOZZA, SUPERINTENDENT; SCOTT NICKLESON, JOSEPH TREMPUS, SHELLY MANKEY, RHONDA HOUSE, FACILITIES GRIEVANCE COUNSELOR; LOIS ALLEN, 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, REGINAL DIRECTOR; JOHN DOE #2, CORRECTIONS OFFICER; JOHN DOE #3, SERGEANT; SUPERINTENDENT ARMEL, JOHN DOE #1, DEBRA A. HAWKINBERRY, ADAM KNEPPER, SETH ERICKSON, LT. FISHER, SGT. LACEY, LAW LIBRARIAN HALUSKA, C/O MALABERTI, Defendants,
PARIS L. JAMES Attorney[s] for Defendant[s]
PARIS L. JAMES
Attorney[s] for Defendant[s]
William S. Stickman, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Cynthia Reed Eddy, 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 under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) by Defendants John E. Wetzel, Mark Capozza, Scott Nickleson, Joseph Trempus, Shelly Mankey, Rhonda House, Lois Allen, Gerald Dillinger, Shoup, Scott Riddle, Melanie Nagy, Sgt. Sheetz, Sgt. Wiles, Sgt. Reinheart, Capt. Tift, Lt. Johns, C/O King, C/O J. Smith, Superintendent Armel, Debra A. Hawkinberry, Adam Knepper, Seth Erickson, Lt. Fisher, Sgt. Lacey, Law Librarian Haluska, and C/O Maloberti (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 76).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint “fail[s] to conform to pleading standards and fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Defs.['] Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 76) at ¶ 9.
Subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the motion is fully briefed and ripe for consideration. (ECF Nos. 77, 88, 89).
For these reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 76) be granted and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to conform with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, and he be provided one final opportunity to amend consistent with this recommendation. Plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 in submitting a Second Amended Complaint, however, will result in the Court recommending the case being dismissed with prejudice.
II. REPORT
a. Background
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on June 16, 2021, against around thirty-two (32) Defendants, ten of whom were John Doe Defendants. Plaintiff's initial complaint spanned sixty-four (64) pages, included 342 paragraphs, and included fifty-four (54) separate paragraphs of purported causes of action that complained of alleged constitutional violations pertaining to multiple different occurrences from 2019 through 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to conform with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, among other reasons, which the Court granted. The Court further allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint and specifically informed him that his complaint was being dismissed because it was “rambling, ambiguous, nearly incomprehensible, and [did] not give any Defendant fair notice of the claims asserted against them.” R. & R. (ECF No. 49) (adopted by Mem. Order (ECF No. 51)). Plaintiff was directed as follows:
[File an 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.Id.
Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint but did not address the many deficiencies outlined in the first dismissal Opinion and Order, despite these instructions. The Amended Complaint names thirty-seven (37) Defendants, eleven of whom are John and Jane Does.
Defendants assert that
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF 58] include[s] eleven (11) Jane and John Does, [] which include: Jane Doe Hearing Examiner, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John Doe #6, John Doe #7, John Doe #8, John Doe #9, [] and John Doe #10 Regional Director. As many of these defendants are unidentifiable, and none appear to have been served, undersigned counsel is unable to confirm representation [to] enter their appearance on behalf of these individuals.Defs.['] Br. in Supp. (ECF No. 77) at p. 2 n2.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint spans seventy-five (75) pages, including 454 paragraphs, and including seventy-four (74) separate paragraphs of purported causes of action. Substantively, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes allegations spanning from 2019 through 2021 and includes complaints about the incidents of prison life. See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 58) at ¶¶ 42-47, 58-61, 75-78, 92, 95, 99-102, 167, 188, 192 (complaints of handling of his personal property); ¶¶ 62, 64-74, 84, 112-116, 172-174, 176, 181, 186 (statements and purported threats and retaliation made by corrections officers); ¶¶ 88-91 (threats made by inmates); ¶¶ 79-81, 138-142, 181 (complaining about his cell assignment); ¶¶ 49-50, 53-56, 189-190 (complaints about his cell conditions); ¶¶ 51-53, 82 (complaints about his cell door opening without warning); ¶ 86 (other inmates listening to his phone conversations); ¶¶ 120-125 (purported cell extraction and cell search/confiscation of property); ¶¶ 83, 104-111, 143-144, 150, 179, 191 (denials of unspecified grievances); ¶¶ 130, 133 (unspecified denial of library use); ¶¶ 144-149 (confiscation of Plaintiff's television); ¶ 151 (not letting Plaintiff work in the kitchen); ¶¶ 154-156, 158, 160, 192 (not maintaining social distancing and protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic); ¶¶ 163-167 (an incident which Plaintiff collapsed in his cell and was taken to the infirmary).
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for several reasons, the most applicable is for violating Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Because it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to conform to Fed.R.Civ.P. 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 Amended Complaint and 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 (1976). As a result, the court will accord a pro se plaintiff an even more liberal reading of the complaint, employing less stringent standards than when judging the work product of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). For example, 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).
ii. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Rule 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 a 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 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). “[Fed. R. Civ. P.] 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 avoid permitting defendants to present an appropriate response. Tillio, 441 Fed.Appx. 109.
c. Discussion
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails as a matter of law for violating Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and must be dismissed. Rather than heeding the Court's instructions to make it more “simple, concise, and direct[,]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e), Plaintiff's Amended Complaint enlarges the purported causes of action and expands the list of included Defendants.
In comparison to his initial complaint, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint adds eleven single spaced pages; twenty (20) purported causes of action; and 112 more separate paragraphs.
In its current form, his Amended 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 Amended Complaint initially recounts an issue with him not being given access to his personal property upon transfer to a new facility, it soon divulges into Plaintiff recounting the incidents of everyday prison life related to his conditions of confinement- including varying unrelated examples of what he claims constitutes unconstitutional conduct. His Amended Complaint additionally includes seventy-four (74) separate paragraphs of purported causes of action against 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. For instance, the causes of action include conclusory statements of the law and reiterates ambiguous and unspecified factual averments in support; and the purported causes of action in his Amended Complaint are largely redundant to previous assertions therein. See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 58) at ¶¶ 194-268. The structure and substance of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint makes it nearly impossible for each Defendant to comprehend what cause of action Plaintiff asserts against them. In its current form, the Amended Complaint forces each Defendant to devolve into a paradox and are thus forced to defend against every possible cause of action that exists in modern-day jurisprudence. As the Amended Complaint currently stands, “[o]nly through superhuman patience, effort, and insight could any attorney review the allegations of the [c]omplaint 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)).
For example, one of Plaintiff's causes of action reads as follows:
Defendants Capozza, Wetzel, Armel, Mankey, Hawkinberry, Trempus acted deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs(sic) eighth amendment right to humane conditions of confinement(sic) were aware, sanctioned and or failed to act upon notice(sic) observation of plaintiff to excessive and unnecessary use of force, unsanitary conditions(sic) which deprived plaintiff of equal employment, programs(sic) privileges(sic) which similarly situated inmates enjoyed and constitutes a violation of plaintiff(sic) equal protection rights under the united(sic) states(sic) constitutional rights(sic).Am Compl. (ECF No. 58) at ¶ 258. Plaintiff's additional seventy-three (73) causes of action read substantially similar.
Thus, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice to afford him one final opportunity to amend and cure these defects. Rhett, 260 Fed.Appx. at 516.
Plaintiff is cautioned that if he is allowed to amend, he is required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2) “to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the legal underpinnings” of his causes of action before submitting a Second 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 Second Amended Complaint. Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp., 835 F.2d 479, 482 (3d Cir. 1987). If the filing of a pleading, including a Second 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 Amended Complaint consistent with the foregoing, he must prepare his Second 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 Second 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 a Second 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 a Second 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 Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff's Second 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. 76) be granted, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and he be given one final opportunity to amend consistent with this recommendation.
Any party may object 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 January 9, 2024, and Defendants, because they are electronically registered parties, must file objections by January 4, 2024. Unless otherwise ordered by the District Judge, responses to objections are due within fourteen days of service of the objections. 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) (quoting Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). See Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing the standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).
Dated: December 20, 2023. Respectfully submitted,
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING SECOND 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 (office) capacity), and the title of the pleading (i.e., Second Amended Complaint). Plaintiff must place his full name at the top left of the Second Amended Complaint and list the names of each individual defendant. Plaintiff must name as defendants only persons who are responsible for the alleged harm.
B. Parties
As the person initiating the lawsuit, Plaintiff must identify himself as such. For each defendant named in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff should list that defendant's current address and description of employment.
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. 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 Second Amended Complaint, where 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, and who was involved. In this section, Plaintiff should write a summary of the facts relevant to this lawsuit. Additionally, any document reference to in this section must be cited as an exhibit and attached at the end of the Second Amended Complaint.
In this section, Plaintiff must provide specific details of precisely how his 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 describe how each named defendant is involved in the alleged constitutional violation(s). Plaintiff should not include legal argument in his Second Amended Complaint. Citations to case law and other statutes are not appropriate in the complaint, but may be included in a response to a dispositive motion or at the time of trial. But Plaintiff should be specific about the details of the event, each defendant's misconduct, and how such misconduct resulted in a violation or denial of the civil right at issue.
If the Second Amended Complaint includes more than one incident, then Plaintiff should 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 specifically described; it should include the relevant time, date, and location. Each incident description also should identify the relevant defendant and what that defendant's role was in the incident. The Second Amended Complaint should set forth factual allegations that, taken together, satisfy the elements of the cause of action.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint is not an invitation to enlarge the lawsuit by filing new allegations not related to the allegations in the Amended Complaint or by adding defendants not related to the allegations in the Amended Complaint. Inclusion of new allegations and claims unrelated to those set forth in the Amended Complaint will be considered a failure to comply with an Order of Court and will result in the dismissal of the Second 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. It is insufficient to simply state Plaintiff's civil rights have been violated.
F. Request for Relief
Plaintiff must describe for the Court the relief he is seeking because of this lawsuit. The relief requested must be related specifically to the injury suffered.
G. Previous Lawsuits
Plaintiff must alert the Court to any other case in which he was a party that may relate to the case he is now filing. Plaintiff should inform the Court of all previously filed cases that include some of the same facts and events he relies on for this case.
H. Declarations Under Penalty of Perjury
Rule 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. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Therefore, Plaintiff must sign his Second Amended Complaint and when doing so he is making a declaration under law to the Court that everything in the Second Amended Complaint is true.