United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se plaintiff, Dajaun Saunders, a former Pennsylvania inmate,
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, asserting that the
defendants wrongly kept him in custody for eleven days after
we granted him bail in connection with a 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition he had filed. The petition challenged a DUI
conviction imposed in the Court of Common Plea of Lackawanna
defendants are: (1) Lisa Swift, an assistant district
attorney in Lackawanna County who represented the respondents
on the 2254 petition; (2) Alice Emmett, alleged to be the
inmate records supervisor at the state correctional
institution in Waymart, Pennsylvania, where Plaintiff had
been confined when he filed his 2254 petition; and (3) Sherry
Barbour,  supervisor of records at the state
correctional institution in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff makes claims under the Fourth,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
before the court is Swift's motion to dismiss the
complaint, arguing that Saunders has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and that she is entitled to
absolute prosecutorial immunity. For the reasons that follow,
we will deny the motion and issue a scheduling order.
Standard of Review
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we must
“take as true all the factual allegations of the
[complaint] and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn
from them, but we disregard legal conclusions and recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Santiago v. Warminster
Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2010)(quotation marks
omitted and citation omitted).
test in reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is whether, under any
‘plausible' reading of the pleadings, the plaintiff
would be entitled to relief." Guidotti v. Legal
Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir.
2013)(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). To
satisfy this standard, a complaint need only contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim, ” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), and detailed factual allegations are not required,
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964.
Nonetheless, a complaint has to plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)(quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965). “[L]abels and
conclusions” are not enough, Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65, and a court “‘is
not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.'” Id., 127 S.Ct. at
1965 (quoted case omitted).
court is not limited to evaluating the complaint alone; it
can also consider documents attached to the complaint,
matters of public record, and indisputably authentic
documents. Delaware Nation v. Pennsylvania, 446 F.3d
410, 413 n.2 (3d Cir. 2006).
complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be liberally
construed and “held ‘to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'”
Fantone v. Latini, 780 F.3d 184 (3d Cir.
2015)(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21,
92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)); see also
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197,
2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). Yet, even a pro se plaintiff
“must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to
support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina,
Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)(citation
alleges as follows. On December 19, 2013, he filed in this
court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction in the Court of
Common Plea of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, for driving
under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. Saunders v.
Asure, No. 13-CV-3056 (M.D. Pa.)(Caldwell, J.). On
February 12, 2016, we vacated the conviction. See
Saunders v. Asure, No. 13-CV-3056, 2016 WL 561947 (M.D.
Pa. Feb. 12, 2016).
filed a motion for bail in the habeas proceedings. (ECF No.
66, No. 13-CV-3056). On March 8, 2016, Swift, representing
the respondents, answered the motion by asserting she did not
oppose it, and by allegedly also stating “that she was
aware that the Plaintiff had no detainers, warrants, or other
cases pending that would prevent him from being released on
bail.” (ECF No. 1, p. 9, Complaint). The
“Response” to Plaintiff's motion, attached to
the Complaint as Exhibit A, does say that Respondents do not
oppose bail, but also only says that in the bail motion
Plaintiff “indicate[s]” he “has no other
offense holding him in custody or detainers lodged against
him . . . .” (Id., Ex. A, p. 16).
time, Saunders was housed at SCI-Waymart. On March 15, 2016,
he packed up his property so that he could be transported to
SCI-Camp Hill for his bail hearing. (Id., p. 9).
Before leaving, anticipating release on bail, Plaintiff spoke
to his counselor about contacting the records department at
the prison so that he need not return. (Id., pp.
9-10). His counselor contacted defendant Emmett, the records
supervisor at SCI- Waymart. She replied that if Saunders were
granted bail, ...