El-Bey v. Allentown Police Dep't

• Decision Date: 22 May 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 23-652
• Parties: WADADUYA EL-BEY, Plaintiff, v. ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER BENNER, BADGE #1; OFFICER FINN, BADGE #260; OFFICER SINTON, BADGE #49; CITY OF ALLENTOWN MAYOR, MATTHEW TUERK; CITY OF ALLENTOWN SOLICITOR, MATTHEW J. KLOIBER; and CITY OF ALLENTOWN CHIEF OF POLICE, CHARLES ROCA, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

1

WADADUYA EL-BEY, Plaintiff, v. ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER BENNER, BADGE #1; OFFICER FINN, BADGE #260; OFFICER SINTON, BADGE #49; CITY OF ALLENTOWN MAYOR, MATTHEW TUERK; CITY OF ALLENTOWN SOLICITOR, MATTHEW J. KLOIBER; and CITY OF ALLENTOWN CHIEF OF POLICE, CHARLES ROCA, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-652

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 22, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

The pro se plaintiff has sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil action against a city's police department, its chief of police, the city's solicitor, the city's mayor, and three city police officers, arising out of the officers' alleged unlawful search and seizure and their other interactions with him after responding to a harassment complaint seeking to have him removed from his residence. For his causes of action, the plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (1) illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (2) false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (3) denial of his rights to equal protection and due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (4) supervisory liability against the chief of police, city solicitor, and mayor. The plaintiff also asserts a violation of a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and a state-law assault tort claim. His requests for relief include a claim for monetary damages and demands that the court terminate the officers' employment with the city, arrest them, and direct that they surrender their pensions and any other public funding they receive.

After reviewing the in forma pauperis application and screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) the court will grant the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss all claims asserted in the complaint, and strike with prejudice his demands for injunctive relief concerning the officers. Concerning these demands for injunctive relief, the court is striking them because the court has no authority to direct the city to fire the officers, arrest them, or order the forfeiture of their pensions as relief in this civil case. In addition, the plaintiff lacks a cognizable right to compel the criminal prosecution of another. Regarding the dismissed claims, the court will (1) dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff's claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because there is no civil remedy for a violation of this federal criminal statute; (2) dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff's claims against the police department because it is not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) dismiss all other claims in the complaint without prejudice to the plaintiff filing an amended complaint should he be able to remedy the defects in those claims identified in this memorandum opinion; and (4) dismiss the state-law assault claim because there are no viable federal claims at this time, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, and the court otherwise lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim because the parties are not completely diverse for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

I. ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 16, 2023, the pro se plaintiff, Wadaduya El-Bey (“El-Bey”), commenced this action by filing an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) and a complaint. See Doc. Nos. 1, 2. In the complaint, El-Bey asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by the Allentown Police Department (“APD”) and three APD Officers: David Benner, Marissa Finn, and Adam Sinton.^[1]See Compl. at ECF pp. 2, 3, Doc. No. 2.

El-Bey alleges that on September 30, 2022, between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m., the Officers responded to a “‘Harassment by Annoyance' complaint” against him, where the complainant wanted him removed from the property where he was residing at the time. See id. at ECF p. 3. When they arrived, the officers surrounded El-Bey, shined a bright light in his face while he was sitting on the patio, treated him “as a criminal,” “plac[ed] him under threat[, and] intimidate[ed] [him].” Id. Based on these allegations, El-Bey expressly asserts that the Officers and the APD (1) deprived him of his equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) subjected him to an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See id. at ECF pp. 2, 4. He also alleges a claim for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and a state-law assault tort claim against the Officers. See id. at ECF p. 2. He states that he suffered emotional distress from the defendants' actions. See id. at ECF p. 5. For relief, he seeks (1) $1.4 million in damages, (2) an order terminating the employment of the Officers and requiring them to surrender their pensions or any other public money they receive, (3) an order requiring the APD to train its officers, so they cease violating federal, state, and local laws, and (4) the imposition of a $10,000 fine against each of the Officers. See id. at ECF p. 4.

On February 21, 2023, El-Bey filed a copy of a letter that he appears to have sent to the Allentown City Solicitor, Matthew J. Kloiber (“Solicitor Kloiber”), where he requested to meet with him so they could discuss El-Bey's “grievance with the [APD].” Feb. 21, 2023 Ltr. at ECF p. 1, Doc. No. 3. Two days later, El-Bey filed another letter titled, “Notice of Civil Action Adjustment” (the “Notice”), where he “inform[ed] the APD and municipal corporation of Allentown, PA, of [his] intent to file [a] motion to adjust the defendants on [sic] my case.” Feb. 23, 2023 Ltr. at ECF p. 1, Doc. No. 5. Regarding these additional defendants, El-Bey claims that he intends to sue Solicitor Kloiber, Matthew Tuerk, the Mayor of Allentown (“Mayor Tuerk”), and Charles Roca, the Chief of the APD (“Chief Roca”), in their supervisory capacities. See id.

El-Bey also includes additional claims in this letter. He avers that he “will be pursuing the maximum sentence available under [18 U.S.C. § 242],” and “additional sentencing of life in prison” for the Officers. Id. El-Bey then asserts that he is looking for an officer who enforced an “unlawful [Protection from Abuse order]” against him^[2]and, once he obtains the name of that officer, he will be increasing his request for compensatory damages from $1.4 million to $4.5 million. Id. El-Bey also states that he “will be investigating the city code/laws which violate the supreme law and will add them to [his] case increasing [his] claim by [$1 million] per violation, [i]ncluding, but not limited to, your infringement upon the right to bare [sic] arms.” Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The IFP Application

Regarding applications to proceed in forma pauperis,

any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). This statute

“is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Specifically, Congress enacted the statute to ensure that administrative court costs and filing fees, both of which must be paid by everyone else who files a lawsuit, would not prevent indigent persons from pursuing meaningful litigation. Deutsch[ v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 (3d Cir. 1995)]. Toward this end, § 1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court in [sic] forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, among other things, that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S.Ct. 1827.

Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 Fed.Appx. 130, 131-32 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (footnote omitted).

The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989) (“Section 1915 provides that, in order for a court to grant in forma pauperis status, the litigant seeking such status must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.”). “In this Circuit, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is based on a showing of indigence. [The court must] review the affiant's financial statement, and, if convinced that he or she is unable to pay the court costs and filing fees, the court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Deutsch, 67 F.3d at 1084 n.5 (internal citations omitted).

Here, after reviewing the IFP Application, it appears that El-Bey is unable to prepay the fees to commence this civil action. Therefore, the court will grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

B. Standard of Review for Screening Complaints Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Sua Sponte Review for Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Because the court has granted El-Bey leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must engage in the second part of the two-part analysis and examine whether the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or asserts a claim against a defendant immune from monetary relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (providing that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- . . . (B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a...