“In Block, the . . . panel majority concluded that in [using arbitrary criteria for denying parole], the [Parole Board] violated substantive due process in grounding its action on constitutionally impermissible reasons.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “In Block, the . . . panel majority concluded that in [using arbitrary criteria for denying parole], the [Parole Board] violated substantive due process in grounding its action on constitutionally impermissible reasons.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AARON J. BRESSI, No. 4:23-CV-00440
Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JULY 6, 2023
Plaintiff Aaron J. Bressi is a serial pro se litigator who is well known to this
Court. He is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution, Rockview
(SCI Rockview), in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Bressi filed the instant pro se
Section 19831 action concerning an alleged Fourteenth Amendment violation by
the Pennsylvania Parole Board (Parole Board) and other state officials. Because
Bressi fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court will
dismiss his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) but will grant him
leave to amend.
1 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 creates a private cause of action to redress constitutional
wrongs committed by state officials. The statute is not a source of substantive rights; it serves
as a mechanism for vindicating rights otherwise protected by federal law. See Gonzaga Univ.
I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Courts are statutorily obligated to review, “as soon as practicable,” pro se
prisoner complaints targeting governmental entities, officers, or employees.2 One
basis for dismissal at the screening stage is if the complaint “fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted[.]”3 This language closely tracks Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Accordingly, courts apply the same standard to
screening a pro se prisoner complaint for sufficiency under Section 1915A(b)(1) as
they utilize when resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).4
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts should not inquire
“whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to
offer evidence to support the claims.”5 The court must accept as true the factual
allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.6 In addition to the facts alleged on the face of
the complaint, the court may also consider “exhibits attached to the complaint,
matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents” attached to
2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
3 Id. § 1915A(b)(1).
4 See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 109-10 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2002); O’Brien
v. U.S. Fed. Gov’t, 763 F. App’x 157, 159 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (nonprecedential);
cf. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
5 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 66 (3d Cir.
1996).
6 Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).
a defendant’s motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based upon these
documents.7
When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged, the court must conduct a
three-step inquiry.8 At step one, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements [the]
plaintiff must plead to state a claim.”9 Second, the court should distinguish well-
pleaded factual allegations—which must be taken as true—from mere legal
conclusions, which “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and may be
disregarded.10 Finally, the court must review the presumed-truthful allegations
“and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”11
Deciding plausibility is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”12
Because Bressi proceeds pro se, his pleadings are to be liberally construed
and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]”13 This is particularly true
when the pro se litigant, like Bressi, is incarcerated.14
7 Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.
v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)).
8 Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted) (footnote omitted).
9 Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009) (alterations in original)).
10 Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
11 Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681.
13 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted).
14 Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
Bressi is currently serving a four- to eight-year sentence for state crimes
including terroristic threats, aggravated assault, simple assault, and driving
infractions.15 His current complaint is devoid of factual allegations. The entirety
of his pleading states that Defendants “caused [him] major intentional infliction of
emotional distress,”16 apparently by violating his “Substantive Due Process”
rights.17 No further detail is provided.
Bressi, however, did attach a notice of parole denial issued by the Parole
Board on November 22, 2022.18 The Court presumes, therefore, that Bressi is
attempting to assert that his November 22 denial of parole violated his Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process rights.19 Bressi’s complaint is woefully
deficient and does not plausibly state a claim for relief.
A. Substantive Due Process and Parole Determinations
The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause “contains a substantive
component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions regardless of
15 See Commonwealth v. Bressi, No. 1887 MDA 2017, 2019 WL 1125670, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct.
Mar. 12, 2019) (nonprecedential).
16 Doc. 1 at 4, 5.
17 Id. at 5.
18 See Doc. 1-1.
19 See Doc. 5 (seeking to clarify that Bressi is claiming that his Fourteenth Amendment rights
were violated because “a state may not deny parole on constitutionally impermissible grounds,
such as race or in retaliation for exercising constitutional rights”).
the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.”20 With respect to parole
determinations, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held
that a parole board’s decision can violate an inmate’s substantive due process
rights if it applies “standards that are divorced from the policy and purpose of
parole” or other “impermissible criteria.”21 Specifically, the specter of a
substantive due process violation is raised only when “a parole board considers a
factor that ‘shocks the conscience.’”22 If, however, there is “some basis” for the
parole board’s decision, and that basis is not “constitutionally impermissible” or
conscience shocking, a substantive due process challenge will fail.23
Bressi’s Section 1983 complaint suffers from multiple deficiencies, not the
least of which is that he has not pled any factual allegations regarding how his
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights were purportedly violated
by the November 22, 2022 parole denial. His two-sentence complaint is entirely
conclusory, and such legal conclusions must be disregarded.24
20 Newman v. Beard, 617 F.3d 775, 782 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S.
113, 125 (1990)).
21 See Block v. Potter, 631 F.2d 233, 236 & n.2, 238, 240 (3d Cir. 1980); see also Burkett v. Love,
89 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir. 1996) (“In Block, the . . . panel majority concluded that in [using
arbitrary criteria for denying parole], the [Parole Board] violated substantive due process in
grounding its action on constitutionally impermissible reasons.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
22 Holmes v. Christie, 14 F.4th 250, 267 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Newman, 617 F.3d at 782).
23 See Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 487 (3d Cir. 2001).
24 See Connelly, 809 F.3d at 787 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
There are other noticeable pleading deficiencies, like lack of personal
involvement for the named individual defendants (Ms. Leigey, Ms. Linda
Rosenberg, and Mr. Gabrnay).25 But discussion of those deficiencies is
unnecessary because Bressi has simply failed to set out a constitutional violation in
the first instance. His complaint, therefore, must be dismissed.
B. Leave to Amend
Generally, “plaintiffs who file complaints subject to dismissal under [the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995] should receive leave to amend unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile.”26 Leave to amend will be granted in
the event that Bressi can plead facts that would plausibly state a Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process claim.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss Bressi’s complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Bressi, if he is able, may file an amended complaint in accordance
with this Memorandum. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
25 See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
26 Grayson, 293 F.3d at 114.