BUTLER v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PATRICK S. BUTLER, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-CV-1471

:

CITY OF ALLENTOWN, et al., :

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

SÁNCHEZ, C.J. MAY 19, 2022

Plaintiff Patrick S. Butler, a prisoner at the Lehigh County Jail (“LCJ”), brings this civil

action against state and local officials and others based on his arrest, prosecution, conviction, and

related imprisonment. Butler seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following

reasons, the Court will grant Butler leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his

Complaint.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1

The Complaint names the following Defendants: (1) City of Allentown; (2) Lehigh

County; (3) LCJ; (4) Allentown Car Mart; (5) Geico Insurance; (6) Lehigh County District

Attorney’s Office; (7) Lehigh County Public Defender’s Office; (8) Pennsylvania State Police

(“PSP”); (9) PSP Trooper Michael Hodgskin; (10) PSP Trooper Miroslav Djindjiev; (11) the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (12) the United States; (13) Ed Muir of the District Attorney’s

Office; (14) Richard Webster of the Public Defender’s Office; (15) John Baurkot of the Public

1 The following allegations are taken from Butler’s Complaint and public dockets, of which this

Court may take judicial notice. Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir.

2006).

Defender’s Office; (16) an unknown Allentown Car Mart Agent; (17) an unknown Allentown

Car Mart Manager; (18) an unknown Geico Insurance Agent; (19) Janine Donate, Director of

LCJ; and (20) Kyle Russell, Warden of LCJ. (Compl. at 2-6.)2 The Defendants are sued in their

individual and official capacities. (Id. at 6.)

The gist of Butler’s claims is that he was wrongfully arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and

incarcerated when police, who responded to his report of a stolen car, arrested him instead of

investigating the matter and then withheld exculpatory evidence during his prosecution, leading

to his conviction. (See id. at 8.) Butler alleges that on October 14, 2019, he called the PSP to

report that his vehicle had been stolen. (Id. at 9.) According to Butler, the police “failed to

investigate and instead arrested [him].” (Id.) At Butler’s request while being arrested,

Defendant Trooper Djindjiev allegedly took a receipt and a cell phone as evidence in the case.

(Id.)

Following the arrest, Butler was charged with criminal offenses in Lehigh County. See

Commonwealth v. Butler, CP-39-CR-0000288-2020 (C.P. Lehigh). During the first month of his

incarceration at LCJ, where he was held as a pretrial detainee, Butler wrote numerous letters

about his car having been stolen to the Allentown Car Mart, Geico Insurance, the Allentown

Police Department, the PSP, the FBI Allentown Office, the Lehigh County District Attorney’s

Office, and the Lehigh County Public Defender’s Office. (Compl. at 10.) None of those entities

responded to Butler’s letters.

Defendant Webster was appointed to represent Butler at his preliminary hearing. (Id.)

Butler alleges that Webster refused to acknowledge “information” Butler raised. (Id.) Butler

2 The Court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system.

sought to cross examine Djindjiev about the receipt and cell phone evidence, among other things,

and the court granted a continuance. (Id.) Thereafter, Butler attempted to subpoena Djindjiev

and continued to seek access to the evidence. (Id. at 10-11.) However, his subpoenas were

quashed and his motion for transcripts was denied. (Id. at 11.)

Butler’s preliminary hearing was rescheduled, and Defendant Baurkot was appointed to

represent him even though Butler claims he made “an intelligent motion to proceed pro se.” (Id.)

Butler alleges that Baurkot had Butler physically moved away from him, preventing all

communication, because Butler sought to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. (Id.)

Baurkot allegedly represented to the Court that there was sufficient evidence to hold Butler on

the charges. (Id.) Baurkot also requested a competency hearing. (Id. at 12.)

In response, Butler wrote a letter to the Pennsylvania Attorney General about the alleged

flaws in his prosecution and received a response indicating that the office did not have

jurisdiction and that Butler should write to the local district attorney’s office. (Id.) Butler twice

sent a copy of that response to Defendant District Attorney Ed Muir, who failed to respond to

Butler’s letter. (Id.) Butler also alleges that during his incarceration, the LCJ, Donate and

Russell, interfered with his mail, denied him access to the courts and possibly retaliated against

him. (Id. at 6.)

According to Butler, Baurkot “tried to talk [Butler] into pleading guilty despite

overwhelmingly exculpatory evidence proving [his] innocence [including the cell phone and

receipt] which was suppressed knowingly, willingly and maliciously.” (Id. at 12.) Butler was

ultimately found competent to proceed and claims that the presiding judge threatened him with a

long sentence if he proceeded to trial, so he pled nolo contendere to disorderly conduct on

September 3, 2020. (Id. at 13.) He received a sentence of four to eight months of incarceration

and was immediately released because he had been incarcerated for eleven months pretrial. (Id.

at 8, 13); Commonwealth v. Butler, CP-39-CR-0000288-2020. He unsuccessfully sought post-

conviction relief. Commonwealth v. Butler, CP-39-CR-0000288-2020. On the same date he

filed the instant civil action, Butler filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on many of

the same defects in his prosecution alleged in the instant case. See Butler v. Russell, Civ. A. No.

22-1472 (E.D. Pa.). On May 2, 2022, Magistrate Judge Sitarski issued a report and

recommendation in which she recommended denying Butler’s habeas petition because he had

served his sentence on the disorderly conduct conviction and therefore was not in custody. Id.

(ECF No. 7).

A few months following his release, Butler received a notice in the mail regarding an

illegally parked car in Allentown, which he indicates was the car that had been stolen from him.

(Compl. at 8, 13.) Butler called Geico and Allentown Car Mart several times “and was hung up

on each time explaining the situation.” (Id. at 13.) He notes that his credit report reflects that his

car loan was “paid off by the dealer” but that the car is still registered in his name. (Id.) Butler

adds that inquiries were made on his credit in connection with accounts opened or attempted to

be opened while he was incarcerated, which he says he did not authorize. (Id. at 14.) Butler

claims that the County is now trying to “[make] him pay tickets/fines on [the allegedly stolen

car]” and that the police and District Attorney will not investigate. (Id. at 8.)

Based on these allegations, Butler indicates that he is bringing claims pursuant to the

Federal Tort Claims Act, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state tort law. (Id. at 14.) His claims are based on

his allegedly unlawful arrest, his prosecution and related conviction and incarceration, and the

failure to investigate his allegation of car theft and identify theft as reflected on his credit report.

(Id. at 8.) Butler seeks damages for his “wrongful incarceration” and “unlawful arrest.” (Id. at

15.)

This is not the first case filed by Butler challenging his October 14, 2019 arrest and his

related prosecution and imprisonment. In December 2019, when the charges against Butler were

still pending, he filed a complaint pursuant to § 1983 against several defendants, including five

defendants named in the instant case — Trooper Djindjiev, Trooper Hodgskin, Attorney

Webster, Director Donate, and Warden Russell — in which he claimed that he was improperly

arrested, that police were attempting to conceal the fact that he was the victim rather than the

assailant in the events giving rise to his arrest, that Djindjiev failed to appear at preliminary

hearings, that he was pressured to plead guilty, and that the conditions in which he was held

pretrial were unconstitutional because, among other things, he was denied access to the courts as

a result of interference with his mail. Butler v. Djindjiev, No. 19-CV-6131, 2020 WL 406770, at

**2-3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2020). Although Butler was given opportunities to amend his pleading,

his case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Butler v. Djindjiev, Civ. A. No. 19-6131 (E.D.

Pa.) (ECF Nos. 20, 22, 27); see also Butler v. Djindiev, 2020 WL 1330749, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar.

19, 2020) (dismissing amended complaint with leave to amend).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court will grant Butler leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he

is not capable of prepaying the fees to commence this action.3 Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) require the Court to dismiss the Complaint if, among other things, it is

3 However, as Butler is a prisoner, he will be obligated to pay the filing fee in installments in

accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

frivolous or fails to state a claim. A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in

law or in fact,” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and is legally baseless if “based

on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir.

1995).

Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the

same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to

determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quotations omitted). “At this early stage of the litigation,’ ‘[the Court will] accept the facts

alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,’ ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff’s]

favor,’ and ‘ask only whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to

state a plausible [] claim.’” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting

Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory allegations do not

suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Additionally, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to

state a claim based on an affirmative defense when the defense is “apparent on the face of the

complaint.” Wisniewski v. Fisher, 857 F.3d 152, 157 (3d Cir. 2017); see also Weinberg v. Scott

E. Kaplan, LLC, 699 F. App’x 118, 120 n.3 (3d Cir. 2017). As Butler is proceeding pro se, the

Court construes his allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Claim Preclusion

Several of Butler’s claims are precluded by the judgment in his previously filed case

about his arrest, prosecution, and incarceration. “Claim preclusion — which some courts and

commentators also call res judicata — protects defendants from the risk of repetitious suits

involving the same cause of action once a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final

judgment on the merits.” Beasley v. Howard, 14 F.4th 226, 231 (3d Cir. 2021) (internal

quotations omitted). Claim preclusion prevents parties from raising issues that could have been

raised and decided in a prior case regardless of whether those issues were litigated. Id. In other

words, “[t]he prior judgment’s preclusive effect . . . extends not only to the claims that the

plaintiff brought in the first action, but also to any claims the plaintiff could have asserted in the

previous lawsuit.” Id. at 231-32. “Claim preclusion similarly reaches theories of recovery: a

plaintiff who asserts a different theory of recovery in a separate lawsuit cannot avoid claim

preclusion when the events underlying the two suits are essentially the same.” Id. at 232;

Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 261 (3d Cir. 2010) (“‘Rather than resting on the

specific legal theory invoked, res judicata generally is thought to turn on the essential similarity

of the underlying events giving rise to the various legal claims.’”) (quoting United States v.

Athlone Indus., Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 983-84 (3d Cir. 1984)).

Three elements are required for claim preclusion to apply: “(1) a final judgment on the

merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit

based on the same cause of action.” Marmon Coal Co. v. Dir., Office Workers’ Comp.

Programs, 726 F.3d 387, 394 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A dismissal

under the in forma pauperis statute . . . qualifies as an adjudication on the merits carrying

preclusive effect for purposes of any future in forma pauperis actions raising the same

claim.” Gimenez v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 202 F. App’x 583, 584 (3d Cir. 2006) (per

curiam). With regard to the second element, claims against individuals who were not parties to

the prior lawsuit may be precluded in certain circumstances, including when there is a

substantive legal relationship between the party and nonparty. Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880,

893-94 (2008).

Here, it is apparent from a comparison of the pleadings that Butler’s claims against

Defendants Trooper Djindjiev, Trooper Hodgskin and Attorney Webster are based on the same

series of events at issue in Butler’s prior case, Civil Action Number 19-6131, which was

dismissed in a final judgment entered on the docket on November 12, 2020. Accordingly,

Butler’s current claims against those Defendants are precluded. Likewise, any claims against

Director Donate and Warden Russell based on the conditions challenged in Civil Action Number

19-6131, i.e., the alleged interference with mail and denial of access to the courts, are also

precluded.4 Additionally, since Butler previously raised official capacity claims that were

essentially claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or PSP as well as official

capacity claims that were essentially claims against the Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office

and Lehigh County, Butler, 2020 WL 1330749, at *3; Butler, No. 19-6131, 2020 WL 406770, at

*5 n. 7 & *6 n.9, Butler’s claims against those entities (and any duplicative official capacity

claims against employees of those entities) are precluded as well.5 See Gregory v. Chehi, 843

4 Liberally construed, it is possible Butler is also alleging retaliation, although other than using

that word, he has provided no facts about how he was retaliated against. (Compl. at 6.) Butler

made the same one-word conclusory allegation in his prior case (see Civ. A. No. 19-6131,

Compl. ECF No. 2 at 3, 14). To the extent Butler intends to bring a retaliation claim here, it fails

as conclusory and, therefore, implausible. Having had two opportunities to allege a plausible

retaliation claim in his prior case, any further attempt to amend would appear to be futile. See

Jones v. Unknown D.O.C. Bus Driver & Transp. Crew, 944 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 2019)

(amendment by pro se litigant would be futile when litigant “already had two chances to tell his

story”).

5 There are additional reasons why these claims fail. The Commonwealth and the PSP, as an

agency of the Commonwealth, are not subject to liability under § 1983, so any claims against

them are legally baseless. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989);

Atkin v. Johnson, 432 F. App’x 47, 48 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“The District Court correctly

determined that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against the PSP, a state

F.2d 111, 120 (3d Cir. 1988) (“In the claim preclusion context, governmental officials sued in

their official capacities for actions taken in the course of their duties are considered in privity

with the governmental body.”); see also Sheridan, 609 F.3d at 261 (“The fact that there are

additional parties in Sheridan II does not affect our conclusion” that claim preclusion applies).

B. Bivens Claims

Bivens provides a remedy for constitutional violations committed by federal actors in

very limited circumstances. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017). Although

Butler named the United States as a Defendant, “Bivens claims against the United States are

barred by sovereign immunity, absent an explicit waiver.” Lewal v. Ali, 289 F. App’x 515, 516

(3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a

waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”).

Furthermore, this claim appears to be based solely on a FBI agent’s failure to investigate Butler’s

allegations about his stolen car and state prosecution, which does not equate to a constitutional

violation.6 See Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007) (“There is no statutory or

common law right, much less a constitutional right, to an investigation.”); Graw v. Fantasky, 68

agency that did not waive its sovereign immunity.”). The same is true of any claims against the

Troopers in their official capacities. Butler, 2020 WL 406770, at *5 n.7 (“[T]he Court must

dismiss Butler’s damages claims against the Troopers in their official capacities because those

are really claims against the Pennsylvania State Police”). Additionally, Butler has failed to plead

a plausible policy or custom so as to state a claim for municipal liability against Lehigh County

or the Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436

U.S. 658, 694 (1978); see also McTernan v. City of York, PA, 564 F.3d 636, 658 (3d Cir. 2009)

(“To satisfy the pleading standard, [the plaintiff] must . . . specify what exactly that custom or

policy was.”).

6 To the extent Butler raises claims against local, state, or federal entities for failing to investigate

the recovery of his car after his release or matters relating to his credit report, those claims fail

for the same reason, i.e., that the failure to investigate, without more, does not amount to a

constitutional violation.

F. App’x 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2003) (“[A]n allegation of a failure to investigate, without another

recognizable constitutional right, is not sufficient to sustain a section 1983 claim.” (quotations

omitted)). For these reasons, any Bivens claims will be dismissed as legally baseless.

C. FTCA Claims

“The FTCA ‘was designed primarily to remove the sovereign immunity of the United

States from suits in tort, with certain specific exceptions, to render the Defendants liable in tort

as a private individual would be under like circumstances.’” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S.

692, 700 (2004) (quoting Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6 (1962))); see also 28 U.S.C. §§

1346(b)(1), 2674. However, this waiver of immunity is subject to certain jurisdictional

requirements and limitations, including the discretionary function exception, which exempts

from liability “[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government,

exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or

regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or

perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the

Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The

United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA action. See CNA v. United States, 535

F.3d 132, 138 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008).

Additionally, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies as a prerequisite to filing a

lawsuit under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). In other words, “[n]o claim can be brought

under the FTCA unless the plaintiff first presents the claim to the appropriate federal agency and

the agency renders a final decision on the claim.” Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775 F.3d 554, 569 (3d Cir.

2015); see also Burrell v. Loungo, 750 F. App’x 149, 154 (3d Cir. 2018) (stating that “[u]nder 28

U.S.C. § 2675(a), a plaintiff may not bring a claim under the FTCA unless he ‘first presents the

claim to the appropriate federal agency and the agency renders a final decision on the claim.’”)

(quoting Shelton, 775 F.3d at 569). This requirement is “jurisdictional and cannot be waived.”

Shelton, 775 F.3d at 569. Therefore, a plaintiff “must . . . plead administrative exhaustion in an

FTCA case.” Colbert v. U.S. Postal Serv., 831 F. Supp. 2d 240, 243 (D.D.C. 2011).

The only possible basis for Butler’s FTCA claim against the United States again appears

to be the failure of the local FBI office to respond to Butler’s letters about his criminal

proceeding and/or car. However, the decision to respond to or investigate Butler’s allegations is

within the agency’s discretion and, thus, falls withing the discretionary function exception to the

FTCA. Brown v. United States, 823 F. App'x 97, 102 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“[D]ecisions

as to investigation, are within the category of conduct covered by the discretionary function

exception”) (citing Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 955 (3d Cir. 1980)). Furthermore,

nothing in the Complaint suggests that Butler exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing.

For these reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction over any FTCA claims.7

D. Section 1983 Claims

1. Improper Defendants

“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).

A prison or jail, such as LCJ, is not legally a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Regan v.

Upper Darby Twp., Civ. A. No. 06-1686, 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009),

aff’d, 363 F. App’x 917 (3d Cir. 2010). Furthermore, it is unclear why the City of Allentown has

7 To the extent Butler raises Bivens or FTCA claims against any of the other Defendants, those

claims are dismissed as legally baseless.

been sued here. Butler named this Defendant based on an alleged “failure to hire and train police

officers under supervisor liability, failure to correct unlawful practices by Lehigh County, Lehigh

County Jail, PSP, Lehigh County D.A. and Lehigh County P.D. Offices,” (Compl. at 4), but

“LCJ is operated by Lehigh County and not by the City of Allentown,” and the City of

Allentown likewise does not control the county or state employees. Butler v. Lehigh Cnty. Jail,

No. 22-0229, 2022 WL 462405, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2022). The Court can discern no factual

or legal basis for any claims against this entity based on the subject matter at issue in the

Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Butler’s claims against LCJ and the City of

Allentown.

2. Non-State Actors

Whether a defendant is acting under color of state law — i.e., whether the defendant is a

state actor — depends on whether there is “such a close nexus between the State and the

challenged action’ that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State

itself.” Leshko v. Servis, 423 F.3d 337, 339 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted). “To

answer that question, [the Third Circuit has] outlined three broad tests generated by Supreme

Court jurisprudence to determine whether state action exists: (1) whether the private entity has

exercised powers that are traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state; (2) whether the

private party has acted with the help of or in concert with state officials; and (3) whether the state

has so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the acting party that it must be

recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity.” Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 646

(3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and alteration omitted).

Public defenders do not “act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s

traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk Cty. v. Dodson,

454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (footnote omitted); Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d

268, 277 (3d Cir. 1999) (“Attorneys performing their traditional functions will not be considered

state actors solely on the basis of their position as officers of the court.”). Their employing

entities, i.e., public defender’s offices, have been treated similarly in this context. See Dorn v.

Aguilar, 645 F. App’x 114, 115 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (“As explained by the District Court,

Dorn did not state a claim for relief against his public defender and the public defender’s office

because neither is a state actor for purposes of § 1983.”); see also Gannaway v. PrimeCare Med.,

Inc, 652 F. App’x 91, 95 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (“We also conclude that the District Court

properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Gannaway’s claims against the Berks

County Public Defender’s Office and the appointed lawyers who represented him in criminal

proceedings” (citing Polk Cty.)).

Here, Butler has named several Defendants who are not state actors subject to liability

under § 1983. Butler raises claims against the Lehigh County Public Defender’s Office and

attorneys from that office who have been represented to appoint him, Attorneys Webster and

Baurkot, but as noted above public defenders and public defenders’ offices are not state actors

for purposes of § 1983. Butler also raises claims against Allentown Car Mart, Geico Insurance,

and employees of those entities, apparently based on his dissatisfaction with their response, or

lack thereof, to his inquiries about the car he claims was stolen. These private companies and

their employees are also not state actors subject to liability under § 1983. See Prater v. Liberty

Mut. Ins. Comp., 443 F. Supp. 3d 586, 589 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (no basis for § 1983 claims where

“Defendants appear[ed] to be private individuals, insurance companies, car rental companies,

and employees of those companies”). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Butler’s § 1983

claims against the following Defendants: Allentown Car Mart, Geico Insurance, Allentown Car

Mart Agent, Allentown Car Mart Manager, Geico Insurance Agent, Lehigh County Public

Defender’s Office, Richard Webster8 and John Baurkot.

3. Prosecutorial Immunity

The Court understands Butler’s claims against District Attorney Muir based on alleged

constitutional violations that occurred in the course of Butler’s prosecution, (Compl. at 5), and

based on Muir’s failure to respond to letters that Butler sent to him about these issues while he

was awaiting trial. Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from damages under § 1983 for

acts that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” such as

“initiating a prosecution and . . . presenting the State’s case.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,

430-31 (1976). District Attorneys and other supervisory prosecutors are likewise entitled to

absolute immunity from claims based on their role in pursuing a prosecution on behalf of the

Commonwealth. See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 348-49 (2009). Accordingly,

Muir is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for his role in in representing the

Commonwealth in Butler’s prosecution. Furthermore, “the mere failure of [a prosecutor]

to respond directly to a letter sent from . . . a criminal defendant who was represented at the time

of the letter[] simply does not violate any . . . federal rights.” Asque v. Commonwealth Allegheny

Cty., No. 07-294, 2007 WL 1247051, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2007); see also Boyle v. Yatron,

No. 10-0530, 2010 WL 1994806, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 17, 2010) (“Plaintiff’s allegation that

Commissioner Leinbach failed to respond to his correspondence does not state a violation of

plaintiff’s constitutional rights”).

8 As noted above, the claims against Webster are also barred by claim preclusion. See supra §

III.A.

E. State Tort Claims

To the extent Butler raises state tort claims that are not precluded, he has not alleged a

basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over those claims.9 The only independent basis for jurisdiction

over any such claims is 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which grants a district court jurisdiction over a case

in which “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest

and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” Section 1332(a) requires “‘complete

diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants,’ even though only minimal diversity is

constitutionally required. This means that, unless there is some other basis for jurisdiction, ‘no

plaintiff [may] be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.’” Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI

Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89

(2005) and Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal

footnotes omitted)). An individual is a citizen of the state where he is domiciled, meaning the

state where he is physically present and intends to remain. See Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652

F.3d 340, 344 (3d Cir. 2011). “[T]he domicile of a prisoner before his imprisonment

presumptively remains his domicile during his imprisonment.” Pierro v. Kugel, 386 F. App’x

308, 309 (3d Cir. 2010). A corporation is a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of

business as well as the state of its incorporation. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

The Complaint does not allege the states of the parties’ citizenship. Accordingly, Butler

has not met his burden of establishing a basis for jurisdiction over any state law claims. In any

event, it appears that Butler and many of the Defendants are citizens of Pennsylvania, such that

9 Because the Court has dismissed Butler’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

diversity is lacking. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Butler’s state law claims for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Butler leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismiss his Complaint. Butler’s FTCA and non-precluded state law claims will be dismissed

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The balance of Butler’s Complaint will

be dismissed with prejudice. Having reviewed the complaint and Butler’s prior civil action, the

Court concludes that amendment would be futile. Due to the dismissal of Butler’s case, the

Court will deny Butler’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d

Cir. 1993) (in determining whether appointment of counsel is appropriate, the Court should first

determine whether plaintiff’s lawsuit has a legal basis). An order follows, which dismisses this

case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez

JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, C.J.