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.

Santiago v. Superior Court of Pa

United States District Court, Third Circuit

November 14, 2013

DIMAS SANTIAGO, Plaintiff.
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA, et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THOMAS M. BLEWITT, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff Dimas Santiago, an inmate confined in the State Correctional Institute at Benner Township located in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed, pro se, this instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Also on November 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Prisoner Authorization Form. (Doc. 3). The Court provided Plaintiff with a copy of its Standing Practice Order (Doc. 5) on November 4, 2013, and an Administrative Order requesting Plaintiff's inmate account statement for the past six (6) months was sent to Plaintiff on November 4, 2013. (Doc. 6).

II. ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has filed his § 1983 Complaint against the following Defendants: (1) Superior Court of PA; (2) Grayhill Esq, Deputy Prothonotary, Lebanon County PA; (3) Lisa Mease, Court Reporter; (4) Lebanon County Public Defender Office; (4) Brian Dederick, Esq.; and (5) Elisabeth Judd, Esq. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff's typed Statement of Claim consists of three (3) paragraphs. ( Id., p. 2). Plaintiff alleges that since August 22, 2012, Plaintiff has made numerous requests to release his transcripts which have not been released causing a delay on his appeal to the Superior Court and PCRA. ( Id ). Plaintiff also alleges that "Lebanon County Public Defender abandoned my appeal direct appeal with the Superior Court of the Middle District. Failed to filed the claimant brief. As a result claimant direct appeal was dissmised (sic) by the Superior Court of the Middle District." ( Id ). Plaintiff further states that the "Superior Court of Pennsylvania Middle District" failed to provide him with court appointed counsel. ( Id ). Plaintiff alleges that he has not exhausted his administrative remedy procedure because a grievance procedure was not available at his institution and he did not file a grievance ( Id., p. 1). Plaintiff does not indicate a request for relief in his complaint. ( Id ). Because Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, we are required to screen his Complaint in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA").

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

As stated, the Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, [2] (the "PLRA"), obligates the Court to engage in a screening process when a prisoner wishes to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.[3] Specifically, Section 1915(e)(2), which was created by § 805(a)(5) of the Act, provides:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Furthermore, under the PLRA, a court may sua sponte bar a claim from proceeding in forma pauperis under the "three strikes" rule. Under the PLRA, it is the court's responsibility to assess whether an action may proceed in forma pauperis, and a court may dismiss in forma pauperis sua sponte. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2), 1915A. Thus, this Court has the authority to raise, sua sponte, the issue of whether plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under § 1915 (g). See Gibbs v. Ryan, 160 F.3d 160, 162, n. 2 (3d Cir. 1998).

IV. DISCUSSION

During the screening process of Plaintiff's Complaint, we discovered that Plaintiff may be barred from filing suits in forma pauperis under the PLRA's "three strikes" rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)[4]. Thus, we have not reviewed the merits of Plaintiff's Complaint under Section 1983. The "three strikes" rule of the PLRA states the following:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon ...

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.