holding, “when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiff's favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an action under §1983 is appropriate”
How later courts described this case
- holding, “when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiff's favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an action under §1983 is appropriate”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL BURTON, :
Plaintiff :
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1901
(Judge Mannion)
Superintendent DELBALSO, et ai., :
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Background
Michael Burton, an inmate confined in the Mahanoy State Correctional
Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania, filed the above-captioned civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). The named Defendants are
Superintendent DelBalso and Board Secretary John J. Talaber. Id. Along with the
filing of his complaint, Burton submitted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 81915. (Doc. 2).
A court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma
pauperis and prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim,
or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. §1915A (actions
in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C.
§1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The court
must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the
light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d
224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because
Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint,
“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations
omitted). The Court has conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff's complaint,
and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted, and the Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed as legally
frivolous.
ll. Allegations in Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that “adding more time to his judge-imposed sentence is
an increase of his punishment without the appropriate fact-finder having
authorized his maximum being increased.” (Doc. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff states
that “increasing his sentenced original maximum date from 06/14/2017 to
09/02/2022 is an adding of punishment to the punishment that he originally
received from his sentencing judge” and a “violation of double jeopardy.” Id.
Thus, Plaintiff filed the instant action in which he seeks damages for false
imprisonment and to be immediately released. Id.
lil. Discussion
In order to state a viable section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must plead two
essential elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a
person acting under color of state law, and (2) that said conduct deprived the
plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States. Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir.
1995); Shaw by Strain v. Strackhouse, 920 F.2d 1135, 1141-42 (3d Cir. 1990).
“To establish liability for deprivation of a constitutional right under §1983, a party
must show personal involvement by each defendant.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 676-77 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and
§1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,
through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); see
Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).
With respect to Plaintiff's request for compensation for illegal confinement,
itis well-settled that prisoners cannot use §1983 to challenge the fact or duration
of their confinement or to seek immediate or speedier release. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). The United States Supreme Court ruled that a
constitutional cause of action for damages does not accrue “for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” until the
plaintiff proves that the “conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). “The complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate
that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.
Because there is no indication of record that there has been a successful
prior adjudication pertaining to Plaintiff's alleged unlawful conviction or sentence,
it is appropriate to dismiss the claim for damages as legally frivolous. Plaintiff
cannot, under Heck, maintain a cause of unlawful imprisonment until the basis
for that imprisonment is rendered invalid. See also Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197,
210 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that the favorable termination rule of Heck, under
which a state inmate must secure a determination of invalidity of his conviction
or sentence before seeking §1983 damages for unconstitutional conviction or
confinement, applies to suits by prisoners who no longer are in custody, even
though federal habeas relief no longer is available due to the prisoner’s release);
Mitchell v. Department of Corrections, 272 F. Supp. 2d 464, 473 (M.D. Pa.2003).
Moreover, to the extent that Burton seeks release, a person in state
custody may file an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the fact
or length of his confinement under section 2254. 28 U.S.C. §2254. “Congress
has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners
attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, and that specific
determination must override the general terms of §1983.” Preiser v. Rodriquez,
411 U.S. 475, 490, 499 (1973) (determining that challenges to the fact or
duration of physical confinement, or seeking an immediate or speedier release
from that confinement is the heart of habeas corpus); Leamer v. Fauver, 288
F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding, “when the challenge is to a condition of
confinement such that a finding in plaintiff's favor would not alter his sentence or
undo his conviction, an action under §1983 is appropriate”). Consequently, to the
extent Plaintiff is seeking habeas relief pursuant to section 2254, it will be
dismissed without prejudice.
IV. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the above captioned action, filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983, will be DISMISSED, without prejudice, as legally frivolous under
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and the case will be CLOSED. An appropriate order
will follow.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATED: December 10, 2019
19-1901-01-ORDER
6