The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN KELLY FREEMAN, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-1270
:
EMPLOYEES OF THE :
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF :
PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., :
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM
Pappert, J. May 17, 2024
Brian Kelly Freeman filed a pro se Complaint, purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against two employees from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
(ECF No. 2.) He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons,
the Court will grant Freeman leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
Complaint without prejudice to amendment.
I1
Freeman asserts that he was transferred from a county jail in California to the
custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in 2022. (Compl. at 4.) He
identifies two individual Defendants who are employees of the Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole, Richard J. Kwiatkowski and Maria Rosaria. (Id.) While
Freeman cites various constitutional provisions, he does not allege any facts about how
these individuals may have violated his rights, nor does he specify the relief he seeks.
1 The facts set forth in this Memorandum are taken from Freeman’s Complaint
(ECF No. 2). The Court adopts the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF
docketing system.
The Complaint also contains two pages labeled with the same page number and non-
consecutive numbered paragraphs. (See id. at 4-5.) It is therefore possible that
Freeman failed to include other pages or allegations he intended to submit as part of
the Complaint.
II
The Court will grant Freeman leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it
appears that he is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss Freeman’s
Complaint if it fails to state a claim. The Court must 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.
As Freeman is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally.
Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.,
704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)). The Court will “apply the relevant legal principle
even when the complaint has failed to name it.” Id. However, ‘“pro se litigants still
must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.’” Id. (quoting Mala,
704 F. 3d at 245). An unrepresented litigant ‘“cannot flout procedural rules—they must
abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.’” Id.
In that regard, a complaint may be dismissed for failing to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019).
Rule 8 requires a pleading to include a “short and plain statement showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,” as well as a statement of the court’s jurisdiction and a
demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In determining whether a pleading
meets Rule 8’s “plain” statement requirement, the Court should “ask whether, liberally
construed, a pleading ‘identifies discrete defendants and the actions taken by [the
named] defendants’ in regard to the plaintiff’s claims.” Garrett, 938 F.3d at 93 (citation
omitted). “Naturally, a pleading that is so vague or ambiguous that a defendant cannot
reasonably be expected to respond to it will not satisfy Rule 8.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted). The important consideration for the Court is whether, “a pro se complaint’s
language . . . presents cognizable legal claims to which a defendant can respond on the
merits.” Id. at 94.
III
Freeman’s Complaint indicates an intent to bring claims against the Defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the vehicle by which federal constitutional claims may be
brought in federal court. (See Compl. at 2.) “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).
The Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 or state a claim under § 1983 because
Freeman alleges no facts to support his claims. He does not identify any acts by the
Defendants that violated his rights, describe any injuries that he suffered, or demand
any specific relief from the Court. Accordingly, his Complaint is far too “vague and
ambiguous” to proceed. Garrett, 938 F.3d at 94.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Freeman leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with
Rule 8 and for failure to state a claim. Freeman will be given leave to file an amended
complaint in the event he can state a plausible basis for a claim against the named
Defendants. An appropriate Order follows, which provides further instruction about
amendment.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.