United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RAMON RIOS-DAVILA, Plaintiff.
JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants.
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge
Ramon Rios-Davila, a Pennsylvania state prisoner incarcerated
at SCI-Mahanoy in Frackville, Pennsylvania, filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
he is being incarcerated in excess of his maximum date of
release. Plaintiff alleges that his original
maximum date of release has changed from August 11, 2018 to
September 19, 2020, which is a violation of his
rights. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and, for screening purposes,
that motion will be granted.
1915(e)(2) and 1915A require a court to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis and in which a plaintiff is
incarcerated. The Court must sua sponte dismiss
any claim that is frivolous, is 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. This
action is subject to sua sponte screening for
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis and is also incarcerated.
survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a
claim, the complaint must allege “sufficient factual
matter” to show that the claim is facially
plausible.“‘A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.'” “[A] pleading that offers
‘labels or conclusions' or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.'” In determining whether a complaint states
a plausible claim for relief, this Court must “accept
all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's
Plaintiff's allegation regarding his detention past his
maximum release date, the Court construes his claim to be one
challenging the execution of his sentence. Such a claim by a
state prisoner must be brought as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and is not
cognizable in a complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Furthermore, as Plaintiff requests, in
addition to his immediate release, monetary damages, such
relief would be barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), which bars monetary damage
claims unless the allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment has
been, inter alia, reversed on appeal or called into
question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
such, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and must be dismissed. To the
extent that Plaintiff wishes to challenge the execution of
his sentence, he must file a separate petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
foregoing reasons, this Court will grant Plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismiss the
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. An appropriate Order follows.
 ECF No. 1.
See Id. at 2-3.