United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
FERNANDO FONSECA, Jr., BRADLEY L. MERWINE, WILLIE JAMES BROWN, Plaintiffs
GENE BERDANIER, et al., Defendants
MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
inmates, all housed in Schuylkill County Prison, Pottsville,
Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). The named Defendants are
fourteen correctional officers employed at Schuylkill County
Prison and William Baldwin, Schuylkill County Prison Board
Order dated August 19, 2019, this Court issued a Thirty (30)
Day Administrative Order, requiring each Plaintiff to file a
completed and signed Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, or pay the filing fee, within thirty days.
date, Plaintiffs Fonseca, Merwine, and Brown are the only
Plaintiffs to submit an application requesting leave to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.
§1915. Consequently, the remaining Plaintiffs will be
dismissed from the above captioned action for failure to file
a completed and signed Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, or pay the filing fee.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (the "Act"), Pub.
L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis, or pay the filing fee 1321 (April 26,
1996) imposes obligations on prisoners who file suit in
federal court and wish to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. §1915, e.g., the full filing
fee ultimately must be paid (at least in a non-habeas suit).
Also, the section requires screening complaints in prisoner
complaint will now be reviewed pursuant to the screening
provisions of the Act. For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief will be
dismissed and Plaintiffs' claims for damages will
considering a complaint accompanied by a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, a district court may determine
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);
Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir.
1989). “The frivolousness determination is
a discretionary one, ” and trial courts “are in
the best position” to determine when an indigent
litigant's complaint is appropriate for summary
dismissal. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33
Allegations in the Complaint
Plaintiffs make the following ten claims regarding the
conditions of the Schuylkill County Prison:
1. There is mold growing in the cinder block near the
2. The ceiling tiles have fell and are falling in the block
and above tables where individuals eat with particles that
fall from ceiling.
3. There are electric extension cords bare in the shower area
attached to the railing which is rust.
4. The kitchen is not serving the proper portion of food and
inmates are being mal nutriented (sic) and deprived of the
proper amount of ...