United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. MARIANI JUDGE
Amalia Crina Kline ("Plaintiff'), an inmate confined
at the State Correctional Institution, Muncy, Pennsylvania
("SCI-Muncy"), initiated the instant action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). At the same time
she filed the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). An initial
screening of the complaint has been conducted, and for the
reasons set forth below, the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted, and the complaint will be
Screening Provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform
Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321 (April 26, 1996) (“PLRA"), authorizes a
district court to review a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or
seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. The Court is required to identify
cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any
claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
This initial screening is to be done as soon as practicable
and need not await service of process. See 28 U.S.C.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 20
must be construed so as to do justice." FED. R. Civ. P.
8(e). Rule 8(d)(1) states, in pertinent part, that
"[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and
direct." Rule 20(a)(2), states that "[p]ersons ...
may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right
to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in
the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to
all defendants will arise in the action." Fed.R.Civ.P.
20(a)(2). Although Rule 20 is a flexible rule that allows
fairness and judicial economy, the rule only permits
"joinder in a single action of all persons asserting, or
defending against, a joint, several, or alternative right to
relief that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
and presents a common question of law or fact." 7
Charles Allen Wright, Arthur Miller & Mary Kay Kane,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1652 at 371-72
1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code offers private
citizens a cause of action for violations of federal law by
state officials. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
Id.; see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273,
284-85 (2002); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204
(3d Cir. 1996). To state a claim under § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege "the violation of a right secured
by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must
show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law." West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). See also Barna v.
City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 815 (3d Cir. 1994).
instant action, the sole named Defendant is SCI-Muncy.
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against every
"person" who, under color of state law, deprives an
individual of a right secured by the Constitution or federal
statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is
well-settled that a prison or correctional facility is not a
"person" within the meaning of § 1983. See
Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973);
Adams v. Hunsberger, 262 F.App'x 478, 481 (3d
Cir. 2008) (finding that the inmate's claims against the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections were barred, as it is
not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983). Accordingly, SCI-Muncy is not a
"person" and is not a suitable entity for a §
Plaintiff's complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8 and 20. Plaintiff sets forth a number of
purported constitutional violations concerning the violation
of her parole, medical issues, physical altercations, and the
assault of her cellmate, which allegedly occurred between the
dates of February 2011 and March 2018. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-8). She
alleges that these purported violations occurred at various
locales, such as her home in South Carolina, the Miami Dade
County Jail, and SCI-Muncy. (Id.). Plaintiffs claims
include a number of unrelated, separate transactions and
occurrences, or series of transactions and occurrences, and
do not involve a common issue of law or fact. It is clear
that Plaintiffs complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8 and 20.
PLRA, which substantially changed the judicial treatment of
civil rights actions by state and federal prisoners, also
compels compliance with Rule 20. Specifically, under the PLRA
the full filing fee must ultimately be paid in a non-habeas
action. Allowing a prisoner to include a plethora of
separate, independent claims, would circumvent the filing fee
requirements of the PLRA. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff
believes that she has been subjected to more than one
violation of her rights, ...