Opinion
1:21-cv-325
04-01-2022
JOHN R. LILLEY, Jr., Plaintiff v. EPD OFFICER WEISMILLER, ERIE COUNTY PRISON, ERIE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, ERIE CLERK'S OFFICE, Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 1] filed by Plaintiff John R. Lilley be granted. It is further recommended that this action be . dismissed for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
II. Report
A. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to pay the filing fee associated with this case. Based upon this averment, it appears that Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to pay the costs and fees of the proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.
B. Legal standards
Because Plaintiff is seeking redress “from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, ” his pleadings are subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In pertinent part, § 1915A provides that a court “shall . . . dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint ... is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). In performing this mandatory screening function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. County of Allegheny, 568 F.Supp.2d 579, 587-89 (W.D. Pa. 2008).
C. Analysis .
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 22, 2021. ECF No. 1. Using a standard pro se civil complaint form, Plaintiff stated his entire case as follows:
Erie Police Arresting Officer Jason Weismiller Arrested me on 5/30/21 against my civil rights for Resist/Arrest Harassment. Judge Robert A. Sambroak Jr. then Held me for Court Schedule with bail set. As a Tenant at Will.Id. In his request for relief, Plaintiff stated:
I received a Tenant at Common litigation Movant for a 5/30/15 Arrest. Violating my Civil Rights. Relief Insurance Process as a Non Movant Tenant at Will from the Courts of Erie PA. $110,000,000,000,000. .Id. No other allegations appeared in his pleading. As Defendants, Plaintiff named Officer Weismiller, Judge Sambroak, the Erie County Public Defender's Office, the Erie County Prison, and the “Clerk of Courts” located in Erie, Pennsylvania.
On January 18, 2022, the Court conducted an initial screening and observed that Plaintiffs proposed complaint lacked a coherent factual narrative, failed to identify the legal basis for any of his claims, failed to attribute any misconduct to several of the Defendants, and attempted to assert claims against Defendants who enjoyed immunity from suit or were not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 6. Rather than dismiss pursuant to § 1915A, the Court offered Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a pleading that complied with Rules 8 and 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court has previously provided Plaintiff with extensive, detailed instructions as to how to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lilley v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 1:21-cv-133 (W.D. Pa. 2021).
Plaintiff filed an “amended complaint” two days later. ECF No. 7. In full, that document states:
I would like to sue the Commonwealth of PA Nolle Prosse court order being avoided for this docket civil, tortorious rights. $9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.Id. Based on this submission, it is evident that Plaintiff is still attempting to obtain monetary relief from an entity - the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - that is generally immune to all claims for monetary damages. See, e.g., Patterson v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 915 F.3d 945, 956 n.2 (3d Cir. 2019) (“[A] state, including an entity that is an arm of the state, is not a ‘person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore cannot be sued for damages under that statute.”). Moreover, despite being advised of his pleading deficiencies in this action, as well as his many other cases in this district, Plaintiff has again failed to submit a coherent or viable pleading. Accordingly, this action is subject to dismissal as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
Due to the voluminous number of cases opened by Plaintiff in this district, United States District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter recently entered an order in another of Plaintiff s cases designating him a “vexatious litigant” and requiring him to obtain leave of the Court before initiating any new lawsuits. See Lilley v. DCD House of Representatives Senator Toomey of Pa, No. 1:22-cv-01 (W.D.Pa. 2022) at ECF No. 6. The instant action was filed prior to the entry of that Order.
Under ordinary circumstances, the Third Circuit has instructed that if a civil rights complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the Court should permit a curative amendment. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). However, the court “need not provide endless opportunities for amendment, especially where such opportunity already has been enjoyed.” Baker v. Moon Area Sch. Disk, 2018 WL 40571719, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2018) (quoting Taylor v. Pilewski, 2008 WL 4861446, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2008)). In the instant case, Plaintiff has already had an opportunity to identify a viable defendant and state a claim for relief. Despite receiving detailed and thorough instructions from the Court, Plaintiff has failed to do so. Because the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation based on the facts alleged in any of his pleadings, it is recommended that further leave to amend be denied as futile. Blackstone v. Richter, 2013 WL 4766761, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 2013) (“Because Plaintiff was previously informed that his original complaint was deficient, and he filed an Amended Complaint, the Court is not required to provide him with further leave to amend.”) (citing Shelley v. Patrick, 481 Fed.Appx. 34, 36 (3d Cir. 2012)).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that this action be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further leave to amend.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).