Petoff v. Holman
| Decision Date | 22 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-0156 (Erie) |
| Parties | THOMAS PETOFF, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL HOLMAN; GARY SEYMOUR; and RONALD BRYANT, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 16]
It is respectfully recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 16] be GRANTED and that the Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 4] be DISMISSED with prejudice.
Plaintiff Thomas Petoff began this action by moving for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, which this Court granted. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 3. His Complaint was docketed the same day. ECF No. 4. At all times relevant, Petoff was a pretrial detainee being held at the Erie County Prison. Petoff's Complaint alleges that he was denied access to courts in violation of his rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution. He claims that various actions of the Defendants interfered with his ability to prosecute a civil rights action he had filed in this Court, Petoff v. Yeaney, et al., No. 1:16-cv-00079. Because he was confined to maximum security, Petoff contends that he could not access the law library and had to have legal research materials delivered to his cell. See ECF No. 4, ¶4(C). But he admits he could use those materials for ninety-minutes, once a week. Id. Petoff also alleges that he was denied assistance from a person trained in the law or the law librarian to help him prosecute his lawsuit. Id. He also faults the Defendants for denying him the free copies, notary services, and extra time with law books to which he claims he was entitled. Id. He blames the dismissal of his prior lawsuit on these deprivations, alleging that Defendants' actions forced him to "wing it" in prosecuting that case. Id.
The Defendants seek dismissal of this action on many bases. They contend that Petoff's claims are frivolous, malicious, and fail to state a claim, thus they are subject to dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; Petoff's claims are barred by res judicata; Petoff has failed to state a claim under the First Amendment and the Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and that given what has been pleaded, Petoff cannot establish a claim under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).1 It is recommend that Petoff's Complaint be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
The Court recognizes that Petoff is proceeding pro se and as such, he is given substantial deference and liberality in federal court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519. Petoff is a prisoner and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has cautioned that courts must be especially "flexible when dealing with imprisoned pro se litigants" because they have limited access to resources "to comply with the technical rules of modern litigation." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013). Even so, pro se litigants, incarcerated or not, are not free to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Spence v. Schafer, 2013 WL1364025, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2013) (citing Pruden v. Long, 2006 WL 3325439, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2006)).
Thus, any complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—as Petoff's was here—must still bear a reasonable relation to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Boozer v. Riggenbach, 2018 WL 1179683 at *2 n.1 (Jan. 29, 2018). Petoff's Complaint, therefore, "must contain a modicum of factual specificity, identifying the particular conduct of the defendant that is alleged to have harmed the plaintiff, so that the court can determine whether the complaint is frivolous and whether a defendant has adequate notice to frame an answer." Id. (citing Frazier v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 785 F.2d 65, 68 (3d Cir. 1986)). Id. (citation omitted).
Apart from the varied rationales offered by the Defendants, Petoff's Complaint could be dismissed for a more basic reason: he failed to file a meaningful response in opposition to the Defendants' motion and therefore abandoned his cause of action. See, e.g., Okim v. Bank of America, 2012 WL 5930613, at *5 n.2 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2012) (), report and recommendation adopted by 2012 WL 5930267 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 26, 2012). After the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, the Court issued an order giving Petoff thirty days to respond. He filed a two-sentence response in which he states ECF No. 19. That is the extent of his response; no argument was made why the Motion to Dismiss should be denied. Id.
Given that discovery has not begun, Petoff's statement is puzzling. It is possible that Petoff meant that the motion should be denied because he has not had an opportunity for discovery. But that is not a valid reason to deny a motion to dismiss. When addressing a motion to dismiss, the Court must take all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the plaintiff's favor. See Chilcott v. Erie Cty. Prison, 2018 WL 5982441, *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2018). Given this well-established rule, discovery need not occur until the Court decides whether a plaintiff has alleged enough facts to state a claim.
More broadly, Petoff's response is no response. He makes no argument nor advances any position in opposition to the Defendants' motion. This, despite being provided with the specific opportunity to do so by the Court. Thus, the Court could view the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as unopposed and grant it. See, e.g., Spencer v. Varano, 2018 WL 3352655, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 9, 2018) (); Marjac, LLC v. Trenk, 2006 WL 3751395, *5 n. 3 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2006) ().
But when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a court should not grant a motion to dismiss "without undertaking a merits analysis." Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991). Since Petoff is proceeding pro se, the Court will analyze his Complaint on the merits todetermine whether he has pleaded a plausible claim. After careful and thorough review, he has not alleged a claim and his Complaint should be dismissed.
To reiterate, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, taken as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Fleisher v. Standard Ins., 679 F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. Although pro se complaints are held to "'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,'" pro se litigants are still required to assert sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim. Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
Petoff alleges that the Defendants unconstitutionally interfered with his ability to move forward on a civil rights case he filed in this Court. See ECF No. 4, ¶ IV (c) referencing Petoff v. Yeaney et al., No. 1:16-cv-0079 (Erie). Under the First Amendment, every inmate has a right of access to the courts. Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996)). To sustain such a claim, Petoff must allege an "actual injury" to his litigation efforts. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. To establish an actual injury, Petoff must show that a non-frivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded. Id.; see also O'Connell v. Williams, 241 Fed. Appx. 55, 57 (3d Cir. 2007). "[A]n inmate cannot establish a relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance ... is subpar in some theoretical sense." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Monroe, 536 F.3d at 206 (). He has not done so.
Put simply, Petoff has not alleged an actual injury to his litigation efforts at Docket Number 1:16-cv-0079 that led to him being shut out of court. For example, Petoff does not allege that he lost an opportunity to file a case in court, or that he could not later file a case after the alleged interference with his right of access to the courts ceased. He claims only that the Defendants limited his access to the law library and did not provide him with help from someone "trained in the law." ECF No. 4 ¶ 4(c). Adequate prison law libraries are a component of the right of access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). And such claims fall under the right of access to the courts. Tinsley v. Giorla, 369 Fed. Appx. 378, 380-81 (3d Cir. 2010); Veteto v. Miller, 829 F. Supp. 1486, 1494 (M.D. Pa. 1992). But Petoff's Complaint does not allege how his denial of access to the law library has caused him...
To continue reading
Request your trial