Opinion
2:22-CV-01891-CRE
01-04-2023
JOSEPH WELTY, Plaintiff, v. C/O GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, Defendant,
Honorable W. Scott Hardy United States District Judge via electronic filing
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Cynthia Reed Eddy Chief United States Magistrate Judge
I. RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the Complaint, and pursuant to the screening requirements for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court recommends sua sponte dismissal of the Complaint before service, as such claims do not support a basis for federal jurisdiction, do not state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and are frivolous. It is further recommended that leave to amend be denied as it would be futile to amend his claims.
II. REPORT
a. Background
Plaintiff is no stranger to prisoner civil rights litigation and has filed at least nine lawsuits in this Court. In his present lawsuit, he sues Global Tel Link Corporation because they did not fix the broken tablet he sent to them to fix and returned a broken tablet to him. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4). He wants Global Tel Link Corporation to replace his tablet or refund him in the amount of $8,000. Plaintiff further admits that he did not file a grievance with the institution through their grievance process. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff's civil cases include the following: WELTY v. BURK, 2:18-cv-1151(W.D.Pa.); WELTY v. McCLURE, 2:20-cv-810 (W.D.Pa.); WELTY v. MESH COMPANY, et al, 2:21-cv-765 (W.D.Pa.); WELTY v. DONKEWICZ et al., 2:21-cv-1843 (W.D.Pa.); WELTY v. KMETZ et al, 2:21-cv-1854 W.D.Pa.); WELTY v. ANDERSON et al, 2:22-cv-413 (W.D.Pa.); WELTY v. RITENOUR et al, 2:22-cv-1004 (W.D.Pa); WELTY v. MORRIS, et al, 2:22-cv-01790 (W.D.Pa.); and WELTY v. C/O GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, 2:22-cv-01891 (W.D.Pa.).
a. Applicable Legal Principles
i. Pro Se Litigants
A pro se pleading is held to a less stringent standard than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). As a result, a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be construed liberally, Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002), so “as to do substantial justice.” Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). While pro se litigants are afforded this leniency, they “do not have a right to general legal advice from judges,” and “courts need not provide substantive legal advice to pro se litigants” because pro se litigants must be treated “the same as any other litigant.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
ii. Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915A (“PLRA”)
This Court has a statutory responsibility to review complaints filed by prisoners and by those who have been granted in forma pauperis to determine if the complaint states a valid claim for relief. The Court is required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
Moreover, not only is a court permitted to sua sponte dismiss a complaint which fails to state a claim, but it is required to do so by the mandatory language of “the court shall dismiss” utilized by § 1915(e)(2) .
In performing a court's mandated function of sua sponte reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to determine if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a federal district court applies the same standard as applied to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. See, e.g., Powell v. Hoover, 956 F.Supp. 565, 568 (M.D. Pa. 1997).
b. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While Plaintiff is afforded leniency in his filings as a pro se litigant, he is not exempt from satisfying basic pleading requirements. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 520. Rule 8(e) further provides that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1). “Taken together, Rules 8(a) and 8(e)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1217 at 169 (2d ed. 1990).
If the complaint is “illegible or incomprehensible”, Scibelli v. Lebanon Cnty., 219 Fed.Appx. 221, 222, “is not only of an unwieldly length, but it is also largely unintelligible”, Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 Fed.Appx. 785, 787 (3d Cir. 2007), or “is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised”, Tillio v. Spiess, 441 Fed.Appx. at 110 (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)), it is necessary to dismiss the complaint for violating Rule 8. See also Mincy v. Klem, 303 Fed.Appx. 106 (3d Cir. 2008); Rhett v. New Jersey State Superior Court, 260 Fed.Appx. 513 (3d Cir. 2008); Bennett-Nelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 450 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2005). “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straight forward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” United States, ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir.2003). Similarly, dismissal is warranted under Rule 8 when a complaint leaves the “defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constitute[s]” a cause of action, Binsack v. Lackawanna Cnty. Prison, 438 Fed.Appx. 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011), or when the complaint is so “rambling and unclear” as to not permit defendants to present an appropriate response. Tillio v. Spiess, 441 Fed.Appx. 109 (3d Cir. 2011).
c. Discussion
Plaintiff has designated the basis for federal jurisdiction in his complaint as under 42 U.S.C. 1983 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff cites to no federal statutes or constitutional right which he claims is violated by virtue of Global Tel Link Corporation failing to fix his broken tablet, and the Court can discern no basis for jurisdiction over such a claim. Without more, these allegations do not confer jurisdiction upon this Court and the complaint must be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Moreover, the Court can conceive of no actionable federal claim based on the allegations in the Complaint and amendment would be futile.
d. Conclusion
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile.
Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Plaintiff, because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by January 23, 2023. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). See also Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).
Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH WELTY NY6986 SCI GREENE 169 PROGRESS DRIVE WAYNESBURG, PA 15370