ROY N. SHAULIS, II, Plaintiff,
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, et al., Defendants.
ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
Plaintiff Roy N. Shaulis, II ("Plaintiff' or "Shaulis") an inmate currently confined at the Forest State Correctional Institution in Marienville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Forest"), initiated this action on Decernber 16, 2013 by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his Constitutional rights were violated when the Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole denied him parole. Plaintiff has additionally filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) and a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 2).
This matter is before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the Complaint, Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. However, for the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel will be denied as moot.
I. Allegations of the Complaint
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the "Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and it's agents deliberating violated conditions and was indifference to state and federal laws and constitutional rights under due process, under Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (sic) (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff further alleges that he has a right and is entitled to parole because of his remorse, his custody level, and his good conduct in prison. (Id.). As relief, Plaintiff seeks:
16.) A declaration that the acts and omissions described herein violated Plaintiff's rights under constitutional and laws of the United States
17.) A preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to amend parole release
18.) Compensatory damages in the amount of one million dollars against each defendant jointly and severally
19.) Punitive damages in the amount of one million dollars against each Defendant
20.) Total cost of trial
(sic) (Id. at p. 4).
II. Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii), a federal court must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the complaint "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must accept the truth of the plaintiffs factual allegations. Morrison v. Madison Dearborn Capital Partners III L.P., 463 F.3d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 2006). The controlling question is whether the complaint "alleges enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (rejecting the "no set of facts" language from Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. ( quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. As such, a plaintiffs pleading obligation is to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim, " Fed.R.Civ.P. ...