United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge
Paul Singh, an inmate confined at the State Correctional
Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania (SCI-Huntingdon)
initiated this pro se civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The required filing fee has been
paid. For the reasons set forth below, Singh's action
will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous
pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
as sole Defendant is SCI-Huntingdon Superintendent Kevin
Kauffman. Plaintiff describes himself as being a real party
in interest, third party intervenor, and secured party
creditor. Singh vaguely contends that his ongoing
incarceration is the result of illegal actions undertaken by
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania officials. The Complaint
appears to allege that Singh's state criminal prosecution
and resulting commitment order violated maritime law and the
Uniform Commercial Code. As relief, Plaintiff seeks his
immediate release from prison. See Doc. 1, ¶ V.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides in pertinent part:
(a) Screening. -- The court shall review ...
a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal. -- On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
district court may rule that process should not be issued if
the complaint is malicious, presents an indisputably
meritless legal theory, or is predicated on clearly baseless
factual contentions. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327-28 (1989); Douris v. Middleton Township,
293 Fed.Appx. 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008).
meritless legal theories are those “in which either it
is readily apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks
an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are clearly
entitled to immunity from suit ... .” Roman v.
Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting
Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir.
plaintiff, in order to state an actionable civil rights
claim, must plead two essential elements: (1) that the
conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under
color of law, and (2) that said conduct deprived the
plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Groman v.
Township of Manalapan, 47 ...