Allen v. Wells
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:22-CV-00010 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 2023 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER LEE ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL WELLS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Pro se prisoner-Plaintiff Alexander Lee Allen (“Allen”) commenced this civil rights action by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2022, against Defendants Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Michael Wells (“Trooper Wells”) Honorable Jessica E. Brewbaker, a sitting judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, and Mark W. Martin, a sitting Magisterial Judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in District 09-3-05 (“Judicial Defendants”); Toby Catone, PA-C, and William Cattell MD (“Medical Defendants”); and District Attorney of Cumberland County Merle L. Ebert (“DA Ebert”) Assistant District Attorney for Cumberland County Kimberly A. Metzger (“ADA Metzger”), and Assistant Public Defender for Cumberland County Lindsey M. Renard (“APD Renard”) (“Cumberland County Defendants”). (Doc. 1). Allen is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (“SCI-Camp Hill”). Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Trooper Wells (Doc. 34), a motion to dismiss filed by Medical Defendants (Doc. 36), a motion to dismiss filed by Judicial Defendants (Doc. 38), and a motion to dismiss filed by Cumberland County Defendants (Doc. 43). The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 39).
For the following reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court Orders.
On January 4, 2022, Allen commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by filing a complaint against Defendants alleging deprivations of his civil rights as well as various state law claims. (Doc. 1). When the complaint was initially filed, Allen was incarcerated at the Cumberland County Prison in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1).
On January 25, 2022, Allen filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court granted on August 2, 2022. (Doc. 5; Doc. 12). Allen filed a motion for discovery and request for subpoena on October 20, 2022, and a request for a subpoena on October 24, 2022. (Doc. 31; Doc. 32). On November 4, 2022, Trooper Wells filed a motion to dismiss, as well as a brief in support. (Doc. 34; Doc. 35). On November 7, 2022, Medical Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, as well as a brief in support. (Doc. 36; Doc. 37). Judicial Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 7, 2022, and a brief in support on November 17, 2022. (Doc. 38; Doc. 40). On November 18, 2022, Allen filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 41). Medical Defendants filed a response to Allen's motion for discovery and request for subpoenas on November 21, 2022. (Doc. 42). On December 5, 2022, Cumberland County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, as well as a brief in support. (Doc. 43; Doc. 44). On December 9, 2022, Allen filed a “notice of retaliation.” (Doc. 45).
On January 4, 2023, the Court denied Allen's motion for discovery and request for discovery and denied Allen's motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 46). In addition, the Court directed Allen to file his briefs in opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss on or before January 24, 2023, and warned Alen that his failure to timely file his opposition may result in the motions being deemed unopposed and granted without a merits analysis. (Doc. 46). On January 5, 2023, Allen filed a letter with the Court requesting an update of the case. (Doc. 47). On January 20, 2023, the Order dated January 4, 2023, was returned as undeliverable as Allen had been moved to SCI-Camp Hill, and remailed to Allen. (Doc. 48). On February 23, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing the Clerk of Court to resent a copy of the Order dated January 4, 2023, to Allen, and directed Allen to file his brief in opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss on or before March 9, 2023. (Doc. 49). The Court again warned Allen that if opposition briefs are not timely filed, he will be deemed not to oppose Defendants' motions. (Doc. 49).
On March 10, 2023, Allen filed a motion for an extension of time to file his brief in opposition. (Doc. 50). On March 20, 2023, the Court granted Allen's motion, directing him to file a brief in opposition on or before April 10, 2023, and reminding Allen that if opposition briefs are not timely filed, he will be deemed not to oppose Defendants' motions. (Doc. 51). On March 31, 2023, Allen filed a second motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss. (Doc. 52). On April 5, 2023, the Court granted Allen's motion, directing him to file his briefs in opposition on or before April 24, 2023. (Doc. 53). On April 21, 2023, Allen filed a third motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 54). Cumberland County Defendants filed a brief in opposition to Allen's motion on April 26, 2023. (Doc. 55). On May 9, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Allen's motion, directing him to file opposition briefs on or before May 23, 2023. (Doc. 56). As of the date of this Order, Allen has still not responded to any of the motions to dismiss.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To assess the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must first take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, then identify mere conclusions which are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and finally determine whether the complaint's factual allegations, taken as true, could plausibly satisfy the elements of the legal claim. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
After recognizing the required elements which make up the legal claim, a court should “begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff must provide some factual ground for relief, which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, courts “need not credit a complaint's ‘bald assertions' or ‘legal conclusions' ....” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor need a court assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged. Associated Gen.Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
A court must then determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations give rise to a plausible claim for relief. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010). The court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). This “presumption of truth attaches only to those allegations for which there is sufficient factual matter to render them plausible on their face.” Schuchardt v. President of the U.S., 839 F.3d 336, 347 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The plausibility determination is context-specific and does not impose a heightened pleading requirement. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347.
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must recite factual allegations that are sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a “short and plain” statement of a cause of action. There is no requirement that the pleading be specific or probable. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347 (citing Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, at 233-234 (3d Cir. 2008). Rule 8(a) requires a “showing that ‘the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545).
With the aforementioned standards in mind, a document filed Pro se is “to be liberally construed.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A Pro se complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be...
To continue reading
Request your trial