United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
SYLVIA H. RAMBO, District Judge.
On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff Donna Hill, the spouse of an inmate currently incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed a pro se amended complaint in this civil rights action commenced pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 12.) In the amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on the allegation that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole does not consider parole for inmates serving a life sentence. Plaintiff also filed a pendant state law claim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress for alienation of affection.
Presently before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. 17.) For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff provides the following factual background with respect to her claim. For purposes of disposition of the instant motion to dismiss, the factual allegations asserted in the amended complaint will be accepted as true and viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is a United States citizen and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 12.) Her husband, Dwayne Hill, is currently a Pennsylvania inmate serving a life sentence. ( Id .) In the amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on the allegation that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("PA Board") does not consider the propriety of parole for inmates serving sentences of life imprisonment. ( See id .) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the court direct Defendants to provide Plaintiff's husband with a parole hearing. ( Id .) In addition, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief on a pendant state law claim, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress for alienation of affection. ( Id .)
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff initially filed a complaint on October 16, 2013. (Doc. 1.) By order dated November 22, 2013, the court directed service of the complaint on all Defendants named therein. (Doc. 6.) On January 31, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) and filed a brief in support on February 14, 2014 (Doc. 11). On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. 12), which was accepted by the court on April 24, 2014, causing the court to deem the motion to dismiss as moot (Doc. 15). On June 4, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and supporting brief. (Docs. 17 & 18.) After being granted an extension of time ( see Doc. 20), Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition on July 2, 2014 (Doc. 21). Thus, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint is now ripe for disposition.
II. Standard of Review
Among other requirements, a sound complaint must set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). "Fair notice" in the context of Rule 8(a)(2) "depends on the type of case - some complaints will require at least some factual allegations to make out a showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny , 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). "[A] situation may arise where, at some point, the factual detail in a complaint is so undeveloped that it does not provide a defendant the type of notice of claim which is contemplated by Rule 8." Id . A plaintiff must provide more than "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" to show entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555) (recognizing that Rule 8 pleading standard "does not require detailed factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"); accord, e.g. , Baraka v. McGreevey , 481 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that the court is not "compelled to accept unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences or a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." (quotations and citations omitted)).
A defendant may challenge a complaint by a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is required to accept as true all of the factual allegations in the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), and all reasonable inferences permitted by the factual allegations, Watson v. Abington Twp. , 478 F.3d 144, 150 (3d Cir. 2007), and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Kanter v. Barella , 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2007). If the facts alleged are sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level" such that the plaintiff's claim is "plausible on its face, " a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 663 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 570) (explaining a claim has "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged"); see also Phillips , 515 F.3d at 234; Victaulic Co. v. Tieman , 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir. 2007); Stevenson v. Carroll , 495 F.3d 62, 66 (3d Cir. 2007). Further, when a complaint contains well-pleaded factual allegations, "a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id . at 664. However, a court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Id . at 678 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Id .
"To decide a motion to dismiss, courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc. , 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); see also Sands v. McCormick , 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007). The court may consider "undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] document[s]." Pension Benefit , 998 F.2d at 1196. Additionally, "documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered." Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see also U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins , 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002) ("Although a district court may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings, a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment."). However, the court may not rely on other parts of the record in making its decision. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel , 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).
When presented with a pro se complaint, the court should construe the complaint liberally and draw fair inferences from what is not alleged as well as from what is alleged. Dluhos v. Strasberg , 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003); Youse v. Carlucci , 867 F.Supp. 317, 318 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Such a complaint "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings ...