Opinion
Civil Action 3:24-cv-00243
05-29-2024
JAMES HILDRED PROCTOR, JR., #EN8285, Plaintiff, v. MONROE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
MEHALCHICK, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR., Chief United States Magistrate Judge
This is a pro se federal civil rights action by a state prisoner, James Hildred Proctor, Jr., who is currently incarcerated at SCI Houtzdale, a state prison located in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Proctor has filed a pro se complaint, handwritten on a pre-printed form. Doc. 1. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Doc. 21.
On its face, the pro se complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and court decisions interpreting them. Under the federal rules, a complaint must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . .;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Moreover, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). It is also helpful for a plaintiff to number each sentence of the complaint, with each sentence stating a fact that explains what a particular defendant did that violated the plaintiff's federal constitutional rights or federal law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b); see also 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 ....”). A civil rights complaint is generally adequate when it states the time, place, and persons responsible for the alleged wrongs. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. Ultimately, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that his claim has substantive plausibility. See generally Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8 if the “complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Ruther v. State Ky. Officers, 556 Fed. App'x 91, 92 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Simmons v. Abuzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)). Moreover, because the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and because he is a prisoner, the court may dismiss his complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id.
The instant complaint names several defendants: (1) Monroe County, where his criminal trial took place; (2) Hon. Ronald E. Vican, a state common pleas court judge who presided over the plaintiff's criminal trial proceedings; (3) Mark Peter Pazuhanich, a former Monroe County district attorney who was in office at the time of the plaintiff's criminal trial; (4) Donald Fernbach, a Pennsylvania state trooper; and (5) Linda C. Fogel a/k/a Linda C. Miller, apparently a mental health staff member at a state correctional institution where Proctor was previously incarcerated. But it alleges only in vague and conclusory fashion that Proctor has been falsely imprisoned pursuant to a “fake murder trial” held in October 2000.It alleges, again in conclusory fashion without any supporting factual allegations, that Proctor's infant daughter had not died, but was alive and with “her real mother.” Other than an allegation that Judge Vican had dismissed an African-American juror from Proctor's criminal trial, it alleges no specific conduct whatsoever by any of the individual defendants. Nor does it allege any official policies, customs, or practices of Monroe County.
State court records indicate that, following an October 2000 jury trial, Proctor was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment without parole for killing his infant child, Samantha Proctor. See Commonwealth v. Proctor, No. 1508 Criminal 1998, 2005 WL 6067886 (Monroe Cnty. (Pa.) C.C.P. Mar. 10, 2005) (denying PCRA petition), aff'd, 897 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (unpublished table decision), allocatur denied, 909 A.2d 1289 (Pa. 2006) (unpublished table decision); see also Commonwealth v. Proctor, 799 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (unpublished table decision) (affirming conviction and sentence on direct appeal), allocatur denied, 812 A.2d 1229 (Pa. 2002) (unpublished table decision); Commonwealth v. Proctor, 963 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (unpublished table decision) (affirming denial of second or successive PCRA petition). A district court, of course, may properly take judicial notice of such state court records, as well as its own. See Fed.R.Evid. 201; Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007); Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cnty., 108 F.3d 486, 498-99 (3d Cir. 1997); Pennsylvania v Brown, 373 F.2d 771, 778 (3d Cir. 1967).
On April 15, 2024, we entered an order advising the pro se plaintiff of these pleading defects, and directing him to file a curative amended complaint within thirty days. Doc. 22. Now, more than thirty days later, the plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as directed.
Accordingly, we recommend that the pro se complaint be dismissed as vague and unintelligible, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have previously given the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, but he has failed to timely do so. Thus, we further recommend that the action be dismissed without leave to amend. See Ruther, 556 Fed. App'x at 92; Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002); Simmons, 49 F.3d at 86-87.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated May 29, 2024. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.