The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO
Plaintiff in this pro se civil rights action is a state prisoner. The gist of his complaint is that during the course of his prosecution and subsequent imprisonment on state criminal charges his civil rights were violated at several stages in the criminal justice system. Accordingly, he has named as defendants virtually every participant in the criminal justice system who had contact with his case, ranging from the court stenographer who transcribed proceedings to a clerk typist at the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. On various legal theories, all of the defendants move to dismiss the complaint.
1. Motion of Defendant Reigh
Defendant Ernest Reigh, M.D., moves to dismiss the complaint against him or in the alternative to quash service of process because he was not personally served with process in accordance with Rule 4(d), F.R.Civ.P. When service of process is challenged by a defendant, the burden rests with the plaintiff to establish that service was properly made. Adams v. American Bar Association, 400 F. Supp. 219, 222 (E.D.Pa.1975).
The marshal's return of service reflects that the complaint was served on an individual other than Dr. Reigh at Community General Hospital, 145 N. 6th Street, Reading, Pennsylvania. Dr. Reigh alleges in his affidavit, without contradiction by Neely, that he does not maintain an office at the hospital and has not authorized an agent there to accept service of process. Rule 4(d) provides that service must be made on the defendant personally, by leaving copies at his "dwelling house or usual place of abode," or by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent appointed to receive process. Plainly service was not made personally or upon an agent, and neither can it be said to have been made at Reigh's usual place of abode. In Cohen v. City of Miami, 54 F.R.D. 274, 278 (S.D.Fla.1972), the defendant doctor was served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with a secretary in the doctor's office at the city's medical center. The court held that such service was "patently inadequate" to meet the requirement of Rule 4(d) that service be made at the defendant's "usual place of abode," in that "usual place of abode" connotes personal residence, and not office. See 2 Moore, Federal Practice, P 4.11(3), p. 4-125. Here, Reigh's contention that service was inadequate is even stronger, because he does not even maintain an office at the hospital where the summons and complaint were served.
Accordingly, the service of process against Reigh will be quashed.
2. Motion of Defendant Wesner
Defendant Grant E. Wesner, a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 23rd Judicial District, Berks County, Pennsylvania, moves to dismiss the complaint against him on the ground that he is entitled to the defense of judicial immunity. It is clear from the complaint that Neely seeks to hold Wesner liable for actions he took in the course of his judicial duties, namely the denial of various motions and writs submitted by Neely during the course of the criminal proceedings against him. It is axiomatic that judges are immune from liability for damages for actions taken within the scope of their judicial duties. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S. Ct. 1213, 18 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1967); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978). Accordingly, to the extent that Neely seeks damages from Wesner, he has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Moreover, although Neely's complaint also contains a prayer for equitable relief, see Conover v. Montemuro, 477 F.2d 1073, 1093 (3d Cir. 1973), it appears that this request is directed at defendants other than Wesner.
Wesner's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted will be granted.
3. Motion of Defendants Marshall, Bivens and Edline
Defendants Marshall, Bivens and Edline are employees of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole whom Neely alleges "maliciously" delayed his release on parole. They move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to set forth specific facts in support of this conclusory allegation, and move for summary judgment on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity in discharging their duties, and there is no material issue of fact with respect to their good faith in processing Neely's parole.
With respect to the motion to dismiss, it is settled law in this circuit that the plaintiff in a civil rights action must plead facts with specificity, and conclusory allegations that the plaintiff was deprived of civil rights will not suffice. Rotolo v. Boro of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1976); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967). The complaint "must state facts in support of its conclusions," Negrich, 379 F.2d at 215, and state "when, where, and how" the plaintiff's rights were violated. Rotolo, 532 F.2d at 923.
Defendants are correct that in the complaint itself, Neely sets forth no facts supporting his contention that the defendants denied his rights. Among other things, the complaint does not allege that the parole board had declared him eligible, whether he had met the administrative requirements for release even if he were eligible, or how these three defendants, one of whom is merely a clerk typist, effectively prevented his release or denied his rights. In Neely's response to defendants' motion, he again fails to make specific allegations and makes new, equally broad allegations that the defendants conspired with county officials to keep him imprisoned, and delayed his release by orchestrating administrative delays. The exhibits which Neely attached to his response in support of these allegations reflect that a detainer had been lodged against him by Berks County officials on other charges, and that Neely was having difficulty meeting the parole board's requirements that he arrange alcohol therapy, a job, and a place to live before release. By attaching these exhibits Neely has provided more detail about the events which are the basis for his suit, but this detail does not lend any support to his broad allegations of an unlawful conspiracy by the defendants to deny him release. (If anything, these exhibits suggest that defendants did not conspire against Neely.) I am therefore compelled to agree with defendants that Neely's complaint against them must be dismissed for failure to meet the threshold pleading requirements for a civil rights action.