Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-cv-02015
01-12-2023
FARIDA B. RAHMAN, Plaintiff, v. FRED WRIGHT, Defendant.
MARIANI, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, Farida B. Rahman, commenced this action by lodging a pro se complaint with the clerk for filing, together with supporting exhibits and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 1; Doc. 2.) We have entered a separate order granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The pro se complaint in this action asserts a federal civil rights claim against Fred Wright, the owner of an appellate litigation services company that apparently assisted Rahman in preparing and filing a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States more than a decade ago. See Rahman v. Foster Twp., 568 U.S. 1090 (2013) (mem.) (denying petition). The plaintiff's current claims, however, arise out of a subsequent, long-running state court litigation between Rahman and Wright as adversaries, Rahman v. Wright, No. 2015-410 (Luzerne Cty. (Pa.) C.C.P. filed Jan. 15, 2015), which in turn appears to have arisen out of Rahman's dissatisfaction with Wright's brief preparation services. The gist of the plaintiff's civil rights claim is that Wright's conduct in defending himself in the state court litigation against him somehow violated Rahman's federal constitutional rights. Although it is not entirely clear from the complaint, Rahman appears to seek an award of damages from the defendant.
A plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides that a court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint is “frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To determine whether it is frivolous, a court must “assess an in forma pauperis complaint from an objective standpoint in order to determine whether the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless factual contention.” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992)). This statutory provision further permits a court, in its sound discretion “to dismiss an in forma pauperis claim if it determines that the claim is of little or no weight, value, or importance, not worthy of serious consideration, or trivial.” Deutsch, 67 F.3d at 1089; see also Denton, 504
U.S. at 33-34 (“[F]rivolousness is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the court entertaining the in forma pauperis petition.”).
The plaintiff has brought this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ....42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but instead provides remedies for rights established elsewhere. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985). To establish a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution. Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1995). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a civil rights complaint must state the conduct, time, place, and persons responsible for the alleged civil rights violations. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005).
The “under color of state law” element of § 1983 excludes from its reach “merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982). It is beyond cavil that Wright is a private individual, not an arm of the state. Under limited circumstances, a private individual may be liable under § 1983 if his or her conduct is so closely related to governmental conduct that it can be fairly viewed as conduct of the state itself. See Mark, 51 F.3d at 1142-43 (detailing the various tests used to analyze whether private conduct may be treated as state action).
But none of the conduct alleged by Rahman can be fairly viewed as state action. She has failed to allege facts to plausibly demonstrate that Wright “acted with the help of or in concert with state officials.” Id. at 1142. The mere fact that Wright may have prevailed against Rahman in state court civil proceedings does not convert him into a state actor or make his litigation activities improper state action. See Wallace v. Fed. Emps., 325 Fed. App'x 96, 102 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[L]itigation does not transform a private actor into an entity acting under color of state or federal law, and conclusory allegations of conspiracy do not suffice.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Clapp v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, 862 F.Supp. 1050, 1059 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
Thus, the plaintiff's claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is clearly based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and should be dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Masi v. Nat, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-01277, 2019 WL 6130901, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2019) (recommending dismissal of § 1983 claims against private individual as frivolous), report and recommendation adopted by 2019 WL 6134161 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2019); Brett v. Zimmerman, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02414, 2018 WL 6576412, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2018) (same), report and recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 6567721 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2018); Toroney v. Woyten, Civ. A. No. 86-4871, 1986 WL 11081, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 1986) (dismissing § 1983 claims against private actor as frivolous).
Accordingly, it is recommended that the plaintiff's claim against defendant Fred Wright for the alleged violation of her federal civil rights, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, be dismissed as legally frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated January 12, 2023. 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.