Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Misturak v. Del. County - Jail Mental Hospital

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 3, 2018

RONALD JOHN MISTURAK, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
DEL. COUNTY - JAIL MENTAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Ronald John Misturak, Jr., who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an Amended Complaint, which appears to raise claims based on a series of unrelated events including events going back to 1999. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Misturak's Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to state a claim.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Misturak filed this civil action on April 12, 2018. In an Order docketed on April 17, 2018, the Court granted Misturak leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Order explained the basis for the dismissal as follows:

Mr. Misturak's Complaint is difficult to understand. His allegations are similar to a prior complaint that he filed in this Court, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and which he references in the instant case. See Misturak v. Del. Cty. - Jail Mental Hosp., E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 17-5276. The majority of Mr. Misturak's Complaint is based upon a series of disjoined words, phrases, dates, and letters, such as “speak spell wagon wheel, ” that do not give rise to a clear basis for a claim against any of the named Defendants. (Compl. at ECF No. 2 at 5.) Liberally construing the Complaint, Mr. Misturak may be bringing claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on, among other things, the conditions of confinement at the Delaware County Jail, as well as allegations that he was subjected to excessive force in 1999 when he claims two correctional officers “rolled him around on [his] neck” and apparently broke his neck. (Id. at 10.) He also alleges that he was assaulted by a police officer in November of 2011.
Overall, it is not clear how any of the named Defendants are responsible for violating Mr. Misturak's rights, nor is it clear what conditions or events he is challenging. Furthermore, the Complaint references dates going back several decades, which suggests that several claims may be barred by the two-year statute of limitations, including any excessive force claims based on incidents that occurred in 1999 and 2011. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524; Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint.

(Order, ECF No. 4, ¶ 2 (footnote omitted).) Misturak was given leave to amend.

         Misturak submitted a document that appears to be an Amended Complaint in this matter. (See Am. Compl. ECF No. 6.) Like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint is difficult to understand and appears to be based on a series of disjointed events going back to 1999. Misturak alleges that, in 1999, an unknown correctional officer at the Delaware County Jail “push[ed] [his] head to give [him] whip lash to retelligation [sic] SMU.” (Am. Compl. at 1.)[1]He also appears to be raising a claim because someone “failed to stop C/O that give [him] whiplash whyll [sic] putting [him] in hand-cuffs to SMU.” (Id.)

         The Amended Complaint also appears to be raising claims based on events that took place at the Delaware County Jail in November of 2011. Misturak appears to be alleging that he was placed in the SMU from November 2nd to November 5th of 2011 for nothing or in “retelliation [sic] me of talk add up too kill me what on video.” (Id. at 2.) He also appears to be raising allegations related to medication he received in April of 2011, possibly at the Norristown State Hospital.

         The Amended Complaint also raises unclear allegations about welfare payments. Misturak's sentence fragments state “name unknown welfare super 5 incident March 1, 2017” and “cut me off some fund to combond [sic] something that mean's [sic] a change.” (Id.) It appears he might be contending that his SSI benefits were terminated. (Id. at 3.)

         Misturak also appears to be raising claims related to a court case identified as “01-3223.” (Id.) He alleges that in August of 2002, he was denied “judgment for case with Judge and people getting shoot [sic] outside in front were I can't get in with court date June second week 2014. To appeal. To back down to him to denied of proceed to start over.” (Id.)

         The Amended Complaint then turns to allegations about a 911 call. Those allegations are as follows:

Called 911 of matches ask no too $20.00 no change for to buy call 911 explain its record I can't lie on the phone lift his post to ask you know your fired. To hit me with brass knockes ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.