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.

Wesley v. Mooney

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

February 21, 2017

DANIEL WESLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPT. VINCENT MOONEY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          HON. JOHN E. JONES III

          Plaintiff Daniel Wesley (“Wesley” or “Plaintiff”), a state inmate who, at all times relevant, was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township (“SCI-Coal Township”), commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 22, 2014. The matter is proceeding via an amended complaint (Doc. 38) against the following employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”): Mooney, Superintendent; Shaffer, E-Block Unit Manager; Sergeant John Doe; and Corrections Officers Bright and Batiuk. (Doc. 1).

         Presently pending is Defendants' motion (Doc. 39) to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.

         Sergeant John Doe has never been properly identified and, consequently, never served. The complaint against him will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

         In rendering a decision on a motion to dismiss, a court should not inquire “whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 66 (3d Cir. 1996). The court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Innis v. Wilson, 334 F. App'x, 454, 456 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). A district court ruling on a motion to dismiss generally “relies on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record.” Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007).

         However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). “First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). Second, the court must then determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief, which is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 211 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (directing the court to identify cognizable claims and to dismiss any portion of the complaint that fails to state a claim). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -- but it has not ‘show[n]' -- ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

         B. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

         Section 1915(e)(2)(B) states, in pertinent part, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action “(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 suit.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) - (iii). The applicable standard of review for the failure to state a claim provision is the same as the standard for a motion pursuant to 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Wesley alleges that subsequent to his transfer from housing unit cell E-2-Cell-11to a Psychiatric Observation Cell (“POC”), Defendants improperly removed his personal property from his housing unit cell in the presence of other inmates, failed to inventory his property, and allowed inmates to remove his property. (Doc. 38, p. 3). He claims Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, violated “Department Code of Ethics Section (B)(7), ” and failed to supervise and properly train “their agents, officers and employees.” (Id. at 2, 3).

         He alleges that Defendant Mooney “is Superintendent and responsible for the operations and conditions and welfare of prisoners.” (Id. at 1). Shafer “is a Unit Manager and in charge of E-2 Block.” (Id. at 2). John Doe is a sergeant “stationed at SCI-Coal Township.” (Id.) Batiuk ...


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.