United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
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).
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
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).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
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).
“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).
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
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.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
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).
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 ...