Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-192 Erie
07-25-2019
MATT L. LOPER, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH OF PA, Defendant
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is hereby recommended that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] be GRANTED. The Clerk is ordered to docket the Complaint.
It is further recommended that this action be dismissed as legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Clerk of Courts should be directed to close this case.
II. REPORT
A. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Plaintiff Matt L. Loper ("Plaintiff") initiated this pro se civil rights action by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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, his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.
B. Assessment of Plaintiff's Complaint
Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Among other things, that statute requires the Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is "frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon 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); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed. Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed. Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his allegations, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). Moreover, under the liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff commenced this action by filling out and mailing the standard form frequently used by inmates to initiate a civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff identifies himself as an inmate incarcerated at the Crawford County Correctional Facility and references an underlying criminal action (CP-20-CR-166-2019) as the source of his injury. Id. at 1. In response to a question on the form asking which federal law has been violated, Plaintiff states: "Injured, and wronged by Judge Misconduct." Id. at 2. The factual narrative attached to his filing consists of only the following three statements:
The Court of Common Pleas used burden that was placed with false facts to detain a person with cuffs.
The Court of Common Pleas used a court address to conduct a false proceeding.Id. at 3. By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks the following: "Detained person be released from custody, and charges be dismissed." Id. at 4. Plaintiff avers that this matter falls within this Court's jurisdiction because it involves a federal question. Id. at 6-7.
The Court of Common Pleas used false facts to take a person into custody.
"It is well-settled that inmates may not use civil rights actions to challenge the fact or duration of their confinement or to seek earlier or speedier release." Black v. Moser, 2018 WL 3239775, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2018) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1975)). This is because, "when a state 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." Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. See also Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000) ("State prisoners who want to challenge their convictions, their sentences, or administrative orders revoking good-time credits or equivalent sentence-shortening devices, must seek habeas corpus, because they contest the fact or duration of custody.").
In contrast, a challenge to the constitutionality of a state procedure may proceed under § 1983 when "success of the procedural challenges would not necessarily require immediate or speedier release for the prisoner." Black, 2018 WL 3239775, at *2. Such is not the case here. --------
In the instant case, the only relief Plaintiff is seeking is release from custody and the dismissal of criminal charges. Because he is seeking "a speedier release from [his] imprisonment," Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500, Plaintiff's challenge "must be brought by way of a habeas corpus petition." Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to pursue his allegations by way of a federal habeas corpus petition. See, e.g., Black, 2018 WL 3239775, at *2 (dismissing § 1983 action seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] be GRANTED.
It is further recommended that this action be dismissed as legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Clerk of Courts should be directed to close this case.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must 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 the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).
/s/ Richard A. Lanzillo
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
United States Magistrate Judge Dated: July 25, 2019