Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bobby L. Lynn v. John Tucci

June 2, 2011

BOBBY L. LYNN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN TUCCI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Slomsky, J.

OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves pro se Plaintiff Bobby L. Lynn, an inmate in Pennsylvania, who filed a civil rights action against the Lower Merion Township Police Department and two of its officers. In Court Orders and at a hearing, Plaintiff was directed to file a proper civil complaint. He has not done so, apparently because his complaint stems from a desire to overturn a state conviction and a civil rights action is not the proper way to achieve this purpose. Moreover, Plaintiff now has indicated that he seeks to withdraw the above-captioned civil rights suit and instead to file a Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the instant action.

II. BACKGROUND

On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff Bobby L. Lynn commenced this action by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1). On November 14, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 9). On November 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed a document referred to as a "Notice"(Doc. No. 10). On January 14, 2009, Plaintiff next filed a "Motion Petition to Appeal the (Guilty) Verdict" (Doc. No. 11). Given the inadequacy of these documents to constitute a complaint, the Court issued an Order on February 19, 2009, directing Plaintiff to file a complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) in order for him to properly pursue this civil action (Doc. No. 13).*fn1 Almost seven (7) months passed and Plaintiff did not file a complaint. Consequently, on September 9, 2009, the Court ordered the case dismissed with prejudice (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff appealed this Order, and on June 24, 2010, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings because the Court had dismissed the case without addressing the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984).

On July 27, 2010, a video status hearing was held at which time the Court orally ordered Plaintiff to file a complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 21). Subsequently, on August 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document titled: "Statement of Petitioner Bobby L. Lynn." (Doc. No. 22). This "Statement" did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, on December 22, 2010, the Court issued an Order stating that Plaintiff's "Statement" (Doc. No. 22) did not satisfy Rule 8(a) because it failed to clearly set forth the underlying facts alleging a cause of action, a request for relief, and the names of defendants. (Doc. No. 23.) Further, in the Order dated December 22, 2010, the Court again directed Plaintiff to file a complaint that satisfies the provisions of Rule 8(a) within forty (40) days of the date of the Order. Plaintiff next filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 24). The Court then issued an Order granting the extension and directing Plaintiff to file a proper Complaint no later than March 7, 2011 (Doc. No. 25).

In a "Statement" or document dated March 7, 2011 and filed on April 20, 2011 (Doc. No. 28), Plaintiff requested that the Court close the instant lawsuit and order the delivery to him of Habeas Corpus forms. Additionally, in documents filed by Plaintiff on April 6, 2011 (Doc. No. 26) and May 13, 2011 (Doc. No. 31), he once again indicated his desire to withdraw the instant action in order to pursue a Habeas Corpus claim under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254, apparently recognizing that the proper way to attack his state conviction was through the filing of a Habeas Corpus petition. For reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss this civil case with prejudice and order the case closed.

III. DISCUSSION

The Court will dismiss this case because Plaintiff has requested that the action be closed, and because Plaintiff has not complied with the request of the Court in the Court Orders and at the hearing held on July 27, 2010 to file a complaint that satisfies Rule 8(a).

A. Plaintiff Has Requested Dismissal Of This Action In the Order dated December 22, 2010 directing Plaintiff to file a proper Complaint, the Court noted the following:

If Plaintiff desires to discontinue this civil rights suit and to file a habeas corpus action as noted above, he should inform the Court in writing that he wishes to discontinue this case and should obtain from the appropriate office of the Clerk of Court the habeas corpus forms required to be used in the District Court.*fn2

(Doc. No. 23 at n.1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a handwritten proposed order*fn3 which requested that:

1) the Clerk of Court shall close-out this civil action Seaman Law Suit case for $30 million dollars by March 7, 2011 under Lynn v. John Tucci et al. 08-1759.

2) ordering for 2254 Habeas Corpus 28 USC. Petition forms (4) extra petitions copys to complete to vacate the Guilty Verdict illegal conviction State Sentence . . . . (Doc. No. 28 at 2.) Further, on April 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a handwritten request in the nature of a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 26). In this request, Plaintiff petitions for "the assignment of civil and criminal lawyer of counseling to represent me in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.