The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN, )
Civil No. 16-1081
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
TOM WOLF, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is an appeal, ECF No. 269, filed by Plaintiff Alton D. Brown, requesting
review of the magistrate judge’s Memorandum Order, dated June 24, 2020 (the “Order”), ECF
No. 268. Upon review of the matters raised by the appeal, the Court concludes that the Order
appealed from is neither clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion.
Standard of Review
The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631–639, provides two separate standards for
judicial review of a magistrate judge’s decision: (i) “de novo,” for magistrate resolution of
dispositive matters, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), and (ii) “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,”
for magistrate resolution of nondispositive matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accord FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(a), (b); Local Civil Rule 72.1(C)(2); see Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d
1108, 1113 (3d Cir. 1986).
In this case, the Order is nondispositive and will not be disturbed unless it is found to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous “when although there is
1
evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573
(1985) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948)). “Where a
magistrate judge is authorized to exercise his or her discretion, the decision will be reversed only
for an abuse of that discretion.” Cooper Hosp./Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 127
(D.N.J. 1998).
Discussion
The case before the Court encompasses three cases brought by Mr. Brown which were
consolidated: Civil Action No. 16-1081, Civil Action No. 17-321, and Civil Action No. 18-
1130. The Magistrate Judge has patiently permitted Mr. Brown several attempts at filing an
amended consolidated complaint. The Magistrate Judge has properly warned Mr. Brown that
permitting him to amend his Complaint is not an invitation to enlarge the lawsuit by filing new
allegations and claims not related to the allegations in the original Complaints or claims that do
not relate to his imminent danger claims. Mr. Brown’s appeal concerns the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling that Mr. Brown may not assert claims unrelated to his imminent danger claims in his
amended complaint. ECF No. 269, at 2. Specifically, he is appealing the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling that in filing a new consolidated amended complaint he may not allege claims unrelated to
imminent danger claims asserted in Civil Action No. 18-1130. Id. Mr. Brown’s appeal is
without merit and will be denied.
Mr. Brown has had at least three prior lawsuits dismissed either as frivolous or because
the lawsuit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) the allegations of any amended
2
complaint must satisfy the imminent danger requirement. Mr. Brown has persistently and
consistently attempted to enlarge his lawsuit beyond the clearly defined parameters required by
the PLRA and repeatedly set forth by the Magistrate Judge. Mr. Brown’s latest challenge to the
Magistrate Judge’s ruling is no different from his prior repeated challenges to the requirements
of the PLRA restricting his claims to those involving imminent danger.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Order appealed from is neither clearly
erroneous nor an abuse of discretion and, accordingly, Mr. Brown’s appeal is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August ___, 2020 ______________________
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Judge
cc: ALTON D. BROWN
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
All Counsel of Record
(via ECF electronic notification)
3