Monche v. Grill
| Decision Date | 02 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:22-CV-1516 |
| Parties | JADEN MONCHE, Plaintiff v. JERRY GRILL et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
MARIANI, D.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 29, 2022, Jaden Monche (“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro se civil rights case. (Doc. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff names a host of Defendants involved in his pending criminal proceeding in Pennsylvania state court. Id. Plaintiff attempts to bring numerous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, claims under Pennsylvania regulations, and claims under federal statutes, against all Defendants. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Lackawanna County Prison while he awaits trial.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The screening procedures set forth in the statute apply to in forma pauperis complaints filed by prisoners and non-prisoners alike.[1] Under this statute, the Court is required to dismiss any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.[2] There is no constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of federal courts to prosecute an action which is totally without merit.[3]
After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint and granting him leave to amend, I conclude that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief against Defendants who are immune from such relief. Accordingly it will be recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED.[4]
This Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by litigants given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Specifically, the Court is obliged to review the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
In performing this mandatory screening function, the Court applies the same standard that is used to evaluate motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To test the sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must conduct the following three-step inquiry:
First, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947. Second, the court should identify allegations that, “because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 1950. Finally, “where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.” Id.[5]
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed and ‘'however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'”[6] Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.”[7] Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Even a pro se complaint must recite factual allegations that are enough to raise the Plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. It must set forth in a “short and plain” statement of a cause of action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) states “a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1) further requires “each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”
The idea is that Rule 8 requires a complaint “to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”[8] The complaint should allow a defendant to “meaningfully answer or plead to it ”[9] To state a claim, a Plaintiff must plead “‘enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' the necessary element[s]” and Plaintiff's Complaint does not do so.[10] The Court will examine these deficiencies in greater detail in the following sections.
Generally, there are two fundamental requirements for every § 1983 claim. To bring a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts that show: 1) a deprivation of a federally protected right, and 2) that this deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.[11]
A plaintiff must plead personal involvement of each individual defendant as “individual liability can be imposed only if the state actor played an ‘affirmative part' in the alleged misconduct, either through personal direction of or actual knowledge and acquiescence in the deprivation.”[12] It is not enough to state “a mere hypothesis that an individual defendant had personal knowledge of or involvement in depriving the plaintiff of his rights,” as that “is insufficient to establish personal involvement.”[13] Many § 1983 claims, for example a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim, have their own unique elements that must be sufficiently pleaded. The Court will discuss these elements as relevant in the sections below.
This pro se, in forma pauperis action began on September 29, 2022, when Plaintiff lodged this Complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in forma pauperis on September 29, 2022, (Doc. 2), which was granted on October 12, 2022 (Doc. 7). The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint on October 27, 2022 and issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining its deficiencies and giving Plaintiff until November 28, 2022 to file an amended complaint. (Docs. 8 & 9). On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint, (Doc. 10), and a Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. 11). On December 7, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff Motion for Extension of Time, (Doc. 12), and denied Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. 13). Plaintiff's amended complaint was due on or before January 6, 2023. No amended complaint has been filed, nor has Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time.
Plaintiff's original Complaint (Doc. 1) lists seven Defendants in this action:
Plaintiff's Complaint begins with a page he labels “Introduction” and marks as “Exhibit 0.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). This “Introduction” details how Plaintiff came to be arrested on November 19, 2020. Id. On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff's mother called an ambulance for Plaintiff. Id. Both EMS and Hanover police officers arrived. Id. The Hanover officers ran an NCIC search on Plaintiff and informed him he “was wanted out of the Borough of Moosic,” though Plaintiff did not know why. Id. Moosic police officers arrived, one of whom was Defendant Giehl, and took Plaintiff into custody. Id. Plaintiff alleges he was “never officially arrested” as he was never handcuffed or Mirandized.[14]
Plaintiff's Complaint lists nine days on which the events giving rise to his claim occurred.[15] (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff begins his factual allegations by saying that his “liberty is being taken from me, my due process rights are not being properly granted and are being violated all NAMED DEFENDANTS has [sic] and still are violating multiple of my right(s) and Amendment(s).” Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff then alleges he is being falsely imprisoned and held against his will, that he is not getting the “equal or proper protection of law,” that he has not been brought to trial in a timely manner, and that discovery was not given to him promptly which has resulted in delays. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8).
On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff had a preliminary hearing over video. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff alleges that at this hearing the Commonwealth and Defendant Grill did not establish a prima facie case and allowed the victim to commit perjury. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the victim testified he did not know who Plaintiff was and showed the police Plaintiff's Facebook page because “a 3rd [sic] party” who was not at the scene of the crime sent the victim a photo of Plaintiff's Facebook page, and that the victim continues to this day to state he does not know Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). Plaintiff believes he should be allowed to confront this third party since they are his real accuser. Id. Plaintiff believes he is “falsely imprisoned” because of “biased wild false accusations.” Id.
On February 5, 2021, a Pre-Trial Conference was held via video. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Plaintiff alleges ...
To continue reading
Request your trial