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.

Eubanks v. Harrisburg Police Dept.

United States District Court, Third Circuit

October 3, 2013

RHONDA EUBANKS, Plaintif.
v.
HARRISBURG POLICE DEPT., Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THOMAS M. BLEWITT, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND.

On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff Rhonda Eubanks, [1] an inmate at SCI-Muncy, Muncy, Pennsylvania, filed, pro se, this action on a 4-page form civil rights Complaint, under 42 U.S.C. ยง1983.[2] Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and an Authorization that same day. (Docs. 2 & 3). On August 1, 2013, the Clerk of Court issued an Administrative Order to the Warden of SCI-Muncy directing a certified copy of the inmate's trust fund account be submitted, so as to evaluate the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, and directing the Warden to remit from Plaintiff s inmate account the full filing fee in monthly installments. (Doc. 5). Subsequently, the Business Manger at SCI-Mucny submitted a copy of Plaintiff's Inmate Account balance indicating the Plaintiff had an account deficit of $9.75 as of August 6, 2013. (Doc. 8).

Named as original Defendants in Plaintiff's Complaint were the Young Women's Christian Association ("YWCA"), the YWCA of Greater Harrisburg, and the Harrisburg Police Department. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2).

In the Statement of Claim of Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. 1, p. 2, Plaintiff simply stated, "[i]llegal eviction and spraying of mace into my eyes."

As relief in her Complaint, Plaintiff requested that Defendants:

Pay all court cost.
Pay all hospital bills.[3]
Pay all attorney Cost.
Settlement of 25 million dollars in cash.

(Doc. 1, p. 3).

In her Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that she has not exhausted administrative remedies as related to her claims. (Doc. 1, p. 2). However, since Plaintiff was not complaining about conditions of confinement at SCI-Muncy, and she did not name Defendants who are employed by SCI-Muncy and did not allege that prison officials violated her constitutional rights, we found that the DOC administrative remedy process did not apply to her claims.[4]

As mentioned, Plaintiff requested, in part, money damages for the alleged violations of her constitutional rights in the amount of twenty-five (25) million dollars in cash.

We then screened Plaintiff's Document 1 Complaint on August 7, 2013, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Banks v. County of Allegheny, 568, F.Supp.2d 579, 587-88 (W.D. Pa. 2008). We issued a ...


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.