United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
CLARK A. WEBER, Plaintiff,
v.
PROTHONOTARY and DEPUTY PROTHONOTARY Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
STENGEL, C.J.
This
case involves a claim by the plaintiff that the defendants,
Berks County Prothonotary and Deputy Prothonotary violated
plaintiff's civil rights when they rejected his complaint
that plaintiff mailed to the court. Plaintiff, a pro
se litigant, alleges one claim: that the defendants
denied plaintiff access to the courts in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim. (Doc. No. 2.)
I.
Background
On or
about July 25, 2017, plaintiff attempted to file a complaint
against Berks County Commissioners by filing an in forma
pauperis motion, a 205.5 Civil Cover Sheet, and a
praecipe for writ of summons. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A.) Also on
July 25, 2017, defendants placed plaintiff's filings in
an envelope with a letter form dated July 27, 2017 rejecting
plaintiff's complaint, and post-marked the envelope for
July 25, 2017. (Id.) Based on the foregoing,
plaintiff alleges that defendants “unlawfully barred
plaintiff's access to the Courts, violating
plaintiff's secured rights.” (Id.)
II.
Procedural History
On or
about August 11, 2017, plaintiff filed an initial complaint
in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas by filing a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. On
September 21, 2017, defendants removed this matter to the
United States District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446.
Removal was based on plaintiff's sole claim alleging a
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has original
jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
On
September 29, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc.
No. 2.) Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to move to
amend the complaint. (Doc. 4.) On October 24, 2017, I granted
plaintiff's request, extending plaintiff's time to
file a motion to amend the complaint until January 16, 2018.
(Doc. No. 5.) To date, plaintiff has not filed a motion to
amend the complaint or otherwise responded to defendants'
motion to dismiss.
III.
Standard
A
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure challenges
the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). To sustain this
challenge, the factual allegations in the complaint must be
sufficient to make the claim for relief more than just
speculative. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Conclusory allegations are insufficient
to support a facially plausible claim; the facts asserted
must allow the court “to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss,
a federal court must construe the complaint liberally, accept
all factual allegations as true, and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555; see also D.P. Enters. v. Bucks County Cmty.
Coll., 725 F.2d 943, 944 (3d Cir. 1984). The court asks
“not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but
whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support
the claims.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n. 8
(2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974)).
When
presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, district courts conduct a two-part analysis. First,
the factual and legal elements of a claim should be
separated. The court must accept all of the complaint's
well-pleaded facts as true but may disregard legal
conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Second, a
district court must determine whether the facts alleged in
the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a
“plausible claim for relief.” Id. In
other words, a complaint must do more than allege entitlement
to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an
entitlement with its facts. Id.; see also
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234-35 (3d
Cir. 2008). “Where 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; see
also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 232-34 (holding that: (1)
factual allegations of a complaint must provide notice to the
defendant; (2) the complaint must allege facts indicative of
the proscribed conduct; and (3) the complaint's
“‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.'”)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (alterations in
original).
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading need not
contain detailed factual allegations, but must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 545. A pleading that offers “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Id. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of
“further factual enhancement.” Id. at
557.
IV.
Discussion
Plaintiff
fails to set forth sufficient facts to state a claim for
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The
First and Fourteenth Amendments protect a prisoner's
right to access to the courts.[1]Monroe v. Beard, 536
F.3d 195, 205 (3d Cir. 2008); citing Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343 (1996)). To establish a claim ...