Opinion
Civil No. 3:CV-05-02142.
October 31, 2005
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 20, 2005, the plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by filing a complaint.
We review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A which provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Screening. — The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal. — On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint —
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The complaint names as defendants Gertrud Foster, identified as the Clerk of Personnel Records at the Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia; Perry Jefferson, identified as a deputy sheriff at the Criminal Justice Center; and Gerald Rozum, the Superintendent at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset.
The plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2005, he sent letters to defendants Foster and Jefferson requesting assistance regarding his identity as a deputy sheriff with the courts. He alleges that defendants Foster and Jefferson are his emergency contacts. He alleges that he has not received a response from either defendant Foster or defendant Jefferson.
The plaintiff further alleges that because of a car accident in the past in which he suffered a fractured skull he has experienced temporary loss of memory and migraine headaches. He alleges that with treatment and medicine he has not had a migraine in three years. He also alleges that he is starting to remember a lot of things. He alleges that he is "Deputy Sheriff of the Highies," a deputy commissioner for the courtroom, a deputy U.S. Marshal, and a Special Agent with the FBI.
The plaintiff alleges that, in connection with a previous lawsuit, Judge Kosik had him immediately released from SCI-Waymart and brought to the federal courthouse in Scranton. He alleges that Judge Kosik explained some very important things to him. He alleges that he explained to Judge Kosik about his skull injury, his headaches and his memory problems. He alleges that Judge Kosik said that he would make a record of the plaintiff's information and keep it in his chambers and that if "it" ever happened again he should contact Judge Kosik by letter and everything would be taken care of.
As relief the plaintiff is seeking to have the court make a computer check of his information about being a deputy sheriff. The plaintiff is also seeking immediate release from SCI-Somerset, compensation for false imprisonment and nominal damages for mental anguish.
We conclude that the plaintiff's complaint is frivolous.
"To be frivolous, a claim must rely on an `indisputably meritless legal theory' or a `clearly baseless' or `fantastic or delusional' factual scenario." Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)).
We conclude that the plaintiff's claim is frivolous because it relies on a fantastic or delusional factual scenario. Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff is seeking relief from custody he must pursue that claim in a habeas corpus case not in a § 1983 case such as the instant case. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that when a prisoner "is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.").
Before dismissing a complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3rd Cir. 2002). In the instant case, since the plaintiff's claim relies on a fantastic or delusional factual scenario it would be futile for the plaintiff to attempt to amend his complaint.
Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and that the case file be closed.