The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Munley
Paris Witcher, ("Witcher"), an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy ("SCI-Mahanoy), originally filed this civil rights complaint on March 26, 2009, naming as defendants Superintendent Kerestes, Officer Maclunny, and Dorina Varner. (Doc. 1.) On February 3, 2010, a memorandum and order were entered dismissing the complaint in its entirety, but affording Witcher the opportunity to amend to cure defects. (Doc. 35.) On February 19, 2010, he filed an amended complaint naming Officer Maclunny ("Maclunny") as the sole defendant.
Because Witcher is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court is obligated to screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915(e)(2) states, in pertinent part, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that (B) the action . . . (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted . . . " 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the amended complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The applicable standard of review is the same as the standard for a 12(b)(6) motion. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may grant a motion to dismiss if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Recently, the Supreme Court refashioned the standard for addressing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007). The Twombly Court stated that, "[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]" Id. at 555 (internal citations omitted); see also Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that standard of review for motion to dismiss does not require courts to accept as true "unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences" or "legal conclusion[s] couched as factual allegation[s]." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact) . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations and footnote omitted).
More recently, the Supreme Court has emphasized that, when assessing the sufficiency of a civil complaint, a court must distinguish factual contentions and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A complaint will be dismissed unless it "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombley, 550 U.S. at 570.) This "plausibility" determination will be "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, No. 07-4285, 2009 WL 2501662, * 5 (3d Cir. August 18, 2009) (citations omitted).
However, courts should generally grant plaintiffs leave to amend their claims before dismissing a complaint that is merely deficient. See Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108; Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir. 2000). A complaint that does not establish entitlement to relief under any reasonable interpretation is properly dismissed without leave to amend.
II. Allegations of the Amended Complaint
Witcher alleges that on August 28, 2008, defendant Maclunny "threw in the trash approximately 217 pages of this plaintiff's Pre-Trial & Trial Transcripts and legal case, personal property." (Doc. 36, at 1.) On that same date, "Maclunny also destroyed by throwing in the trash personal religious material of this plaintiff to purposefully discriminate against this petitioner for [h]is religious beliefs to this plaintiff's personal harm, injury and damages, in throwing away 25 religious books, including 2 Qurans, 2 Hadiths, and assorted study books."
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code offers private citizens a means to redress violations of federal law committed by state officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .
Id. Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights, but merely a method for vindicating violations of other federal laws. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 775-76 (3d Cir. 2004). To establish a claim under this section, the plaintiff must show the deprivation of a "right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States . . . by a person acting under color of state law." Kneipp v. ...