United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
H. RAMBO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Kenyatta Wright, an inmate currently confined at the State
Correctional Institution at Dallas, Pennsylvania
(“SCI-Dallas”), filed this civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 23, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.)
Plaintiff has also filed two motions for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 2, 6). Pursuant to the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”),
the Court will perform its mandatory screening of the
complaint, grant Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint.
alleges that on June 6, 2017, he was arrested for possession
with the intent to manufacture or deliver and on September 7,
2017, sentenced to nine to twenty-three months imprisonment.
(Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff claims that he was taken from
the Dauphin County Prison to SCI-Camp Hill where he served
fifty-three (53) days past his maximum sentence date.
(Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff requests $1, 500 for every
day he is incarcerated past his maximum sentence date and
reimbursement for funds expended while incarcerated.
(Id. at 5-6.)
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, federal district courts must
“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.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). If a complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, the court must dismiss the complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). District courts have a similar
screening obligation with respect to actions filed by
prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis and prisoners
challenging prison conditions. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted . . . .”); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1)
(“The Court shall on its own motion or on the motion of
a party dismiss any action brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title . . . by a
prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility if the court is satisfied that the action . . .
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
dismissing claims under §§ 1915(e), 1915A, and
1997e, district courts apply the standard governing motions
to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Smithson v.
Koons, Civ. No. 15-01757, 2017 WL 3016165, at *3 (M.D.
Pa. June 26, 2017) (“The legal standard for dismissing
a complaint for failure to state a claim under §
1915A(b)(1), § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), or § 1997e(c)(1)
is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.”); Mitchell v. Dodrill, 696
F.Supp.2d 454, 471 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (explaining that when
dismissing a complaint pursuant to § 1915A, “a
court employs the motion to dismiss standard set forth under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”).
ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court
must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint
and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them,
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314
(3d Cir. 2010). The Court's inquiry is guided by the
standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009). Under Twombly and Iqbal, pleading
requirements have shifted to a “more heightened form of
pleading.” See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578
F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). To prevent dismissal, all civil
complaints must set out “sufficient factual
matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible.
Id. The plausibility standard requires more than a
mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged
misconduct. As the Supreme Court instructed in
Iqbal, “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 (citing
to determine the sufficiency of a complaint under
Twombly and Iqbal, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit has identified the following
steps a district court must take when determining the
sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6): (1) identify
the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2)
identify any conclusory allegations contained in the
complaint “not entitled” to the assumption of
truth; and (3) determine whether any “well-pleaded
factual allegations” contained in the complaint
“plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.” See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629
F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks
ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, “a court must consider only the
complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of
public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if
the complainant's claims are based upon these
documents.” Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223,
230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v.
White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.
1993)). A court may also consider “any ‘matters
incorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items
subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders,
[and] items appearing in the record of the case.'”
Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260
(3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (3d Ed.
conducting its screening review of a complaint, the court
must be mindful that a document filed pro se is
“to be liberally construed.” Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro se
complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, ” must be
held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for
failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
appears to be attacking the duration of his current
Pennsylvania state incarceration. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Inmates
challenging the duration of their confinement or seeking
earlier or speedier release must assert such claims in a
properly filed habeas corpus petition. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1975); Telford v.
Hepting, 990 F.2d 745, 748 (3d Cir. 1993), cert.
denied 510 U.S. 920 (1993). Federal habeas corpus review
is the appropriate remedy when “the deprivation of
rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length
of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532,
540 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (providing
that federal habeas corpus review allows a prisoner “to
challenge the ‘execution' of his sentence.”).
a civil rights claim for declaratory relief “based on
allegations . . . that necessarily imply the invalidity of
the punishment imposed, is not cognizable” in a §
1983 civil rights action. Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641, 646 (1997); Georgevich v. Strauss, 772
F.2d 1078, 1086 (3d Cir. 1985) (civil rights claims seeking
release from confinement sound in habeas corpus).
Consequently, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking his
release from imprisonment or challenging the length of his
confinement, such requests for relief are not ...