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.

Adderly v. Stofko

United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

February 3, 2015

NATHANIEL L. ADDERLY, Plaintiff
v.
C.O. STOFKO, et al., Defendants

MEMORANDUM

Kosik, Judge

Plaintiff, Nathaniel L. Adderly, an inmate confined at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds in forma pauperis in this matter. The matter proceeds on a complaint that names fifteen (15) Defendants, fourteen of whom are former or current employees at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility ("LCCF"), Pennsylvania. The complaint is 544 paragraphs in length, and with exhibits, numbers 85 pages. The pleading includes numerous allegations and spans the time period from August of 2011, when Plaintiff entered LCCF, through August of 2012. Presently pending are Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 33), and Plaintiffs motion to file a supplement to the complaint (Doc. 40.). For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss will be granted, but Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to submit an amended complaint in this action. Plaintiffs motion to file a supplemental complaint will be denied as moot.

I. Background

Plaintiffs complaint sets forth a host of allegations including, but not limited to, challenges to his placement, continued confinement and conditions in Protective Custody ("PC"), being made to wear a "caution yellow uniform" which he claims is stigmatizing, the physical and mental deterioration he is suffering, numerous incidents of retaliation, the issuance of numerous false misconducts, incidents of excessive force, the denial of due process, conspiracy, and deprivation of personal and legal property. He seeks declaratory, injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, wherein they contend that the complaint should be stricken pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and (d)(1), and that any allegations related to Plaintiffs placement in protective custody fails to allege conduct violating the Constitution. (Doc. 35 at 3.) Also pending is Plaintiffs motion seeking leave to supplement his complaint to include additional defendants and allegations covering the time period from March 12, 2012 through October of 2014. The new claims include additional incidents of excessive force, retaliation, false misconduct reports and conditions of confinement claims. (Doc. 40.)

II. Discussion

A. Motion to dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant, in response to a complaint, to file a motion to dismiss a claim or claims for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ...." A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint, and construe any inferences to be drawn from the allegations in Plaintiffs favor. See Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005)). "The assumption of truth does not apply, however, to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations or to '[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.'" Marangos v. Swett No. 08-4146, 2009 WL 1803264 (3d Cir. June 25, 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __U.S.__, __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009).

In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain enough "facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and the factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted); accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1953. The facts plead must offer more "than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. 120 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations and citations omitted). "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." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Further, a district court should provide leave to amend "when amendment could cure the deficiency and would not be inequitable." Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 2002). A complaint that does not establish entitlement to relief under any reasonable interpretation is properly dismissed without leave to amend. Id. at 106.

Failure of Complaint to comply with Federal Rules

In seeking to strike the complaint, Defendants maintain that the pleading, as submitted, violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and (d)(1). Specifically, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires that a claim for relief contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1) requires that each allegation be simple, concise and direct. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs submission is a running narrative far from a brief, concise and direct pleading of the allegations and, at many points, filled with irrelevant information and general conclusions. In fact, Plaintiff asserts a conspiracy, apparently in an effort to tie together all of the allegations he sets forth, but fails to offer any facts supporting the existence of a conspiracy.[1]

Defendant's arguments are well-taken. The complaint does fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and, as such, will be dismissed, but with leave for Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint in this matter. Instead of setting forth related allegations and defendants, Plaintiff sets forth over a year's worth of claims regarding incidents and defendants that he attempts to intertwine through a general assertion of conspiracy. Plaintiff appears to rely on his claim of the existence of a conspiracy among the Defendants to harm him due to his complaints about his classification placement and the other abuses taking place.

In carefully reviewing the complaint, the court must agree that as it stands, the complaint is not in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the complaint clearly violates the spirit of Rule 8, as it is anything but short, simple, concise and direct. Second, while Plaintiff loosely weaves general allegations of the existence of a retaliatory conspiracy intermittently through the complaint, he does not offer any facts supporting the elements of a conspiracy. Without such allegations, the complaint is in direct violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 20.

In order to set forth a cognizable conspiracy claim, a plaintiff cannot rely on broad or conclusory allegations. D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1377 (3d Cir. 1992); Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 366 (3d Cir. 1989). The Third Circuit has noted that a civil rights conspiracy claim is sufficiently alleged if the complaint details the following: (1) the conduct that violated the plaintiffs rights, (2) the time and place of the conduct, and (3) the identity of the officials responsible for ...


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.