United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
JOSEPH CLIFFORD MALCOMB, McKees Rocks, PA 15136.
Timothy Mazzocca, Office of Attorney General.
Marie Milie Jones, JonesPassodelis, PLLC.
Michael R. Lettrich, JonesPassodelis PLLC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Beaver County Pennsylvania (Prothonotary) (ECF No. 27). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.
Plaintiff, Joseph Clifford Malcomb, initiated this lawsuit on December 12, 2013, while he was a prisoner housed at the State Correctional Institution at Benner. On December 22, 2013, Plaintiff was released from prison. Plaintiff alleges that his 26 month to 240 month sentence, with 204 days credit, began on December 11, 1991, and should have expired on December 11, 2011. He contends that he was "unlawfully detained over [his] maximum." Named as Defendants are the Beaver County Prothonotary, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Central Office) ("DOC"), the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("PBPP"), and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania ("OAG"). Plaintiff is seeking "36 million compensation (official capacity) compensatory damages; and 36 million compensation (individual capacity) punitive damages."
Defendant Prothonotary filed the instant motion on May 19, 2014, (ECF No. 27) along with a Brief in support thereof (ECF No. 28) in which she argues that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court issued a Response / Briefing Schedule and Plaintiff was specifically advised to either file an amended complaint or a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss on or before June 23, 2014. Plaintiff was further advised that should he fail to comply with the Order, the Motion to Dismiss may be decided without the benefit of his response. See ECF No. 29. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any type of responsive pleading nor has he requested an additional extension of time in which to do so.
Accordingly, the Court will analyze the Complaint on the merits, notwithstanding that Plaintiff did not file a response to the pending motion. Ray v. Reed, 240 F.App'x 455, 456 (3d Cir. 2007).
Standard of Review
A. Pro Se Litigants
Pro se pleadings, "however inartfully pleaded, " must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Bierley, 141 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969) (petition prepared by a prisoner may be inartfully drawn and should be read "with a measure of tolerance"). Under our liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of litigation, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997). See, e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d ...