# CASTRO-MOTA v. CHAPIRO

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · August 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11123578

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 19, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11123578

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SANTOS CASTRO-MOTA,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-1011
V. Hon. William S. Stickman IV
Hon. Christopher B. Brown
GOVERNOR JOHN CHAPIRO, et al,
Defendants.

ORDER OF COURT
Pro se Plaintiff Santos Castro-Mota (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is in federal custody at
the Butler County Prison during the pendency of his criminal proceeding at 2:22-cr-00048. He
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on December 31, 2024 (ECF No. 10). Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown issued a Report and
Recommendation on May 16, 2025, recommending that the Court dismiss this case with
prejudice without leave to amend. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff was given until July 21, 2025, to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 18-20). Instead of filing objections,
Plaintiff filed a Motion Seeking Access to Grand Jury Materials to Challenge the Selection of
Grand Juries (ECF No. 21), as well as correspondence to the Court (ECF No. 22) explaining that
he wants his grand jury materials for Criminal No. 2:22-cr-00048 and that he intends to file a
motion to dismiss the indictment in that case. He then filed two motions to dismiss the
indictment. (ECF Nos. 23 and 24).

No objections having been filed, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brown’s
Report and Recommendation as its Opinion. It wholeheartedly agrees with Magistrate Judge
Brown that Plaintiff has failed to present any colorable legal argument:
The gravamen of Castro-Mota’s Amended Complaint is a speedy trial
claim. It appears all six defendants may have been involved in some manner with
Castro-Mota’s pending federal criminal prosecution. The Amended Complaint,
however, provides no factual allegations to support Castro-Mota’s bald assertion
that his speedy trial rights have been violated.
Even assuming the Amended Complaint contained sufficient facts to
support a colorable constitutional claim, a civil rights case may not be used to
challenge the fact or length of a prisoner’s detention. Any claim challenging the
fact or length of a prisoner’s detention must be raised either via a motion in the
criminal case or a habeas corpus petition, not with a civil rights action as is the
case here. However, Castro-Mota is a pre-trial detainee, and courts within the
Third Circuit generally decline to exercise pre-trial habeas jurisdiction.
A speedy trial challenge is therefore most appropriately made through a
motion filed in the underlying criminal case with the assigned District Court
Judge. See e.g., Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 246-47 (3d
Cir. 2018) (pre-trial detainee may not resort to habeas petition and must instead
seek pretrial relief through the filing of a motion in the underlying criminal case).
(ECF No. 18, p. 8).
AND NOW, this _!¥_ day of August 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's
amended complaint (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court holds that
further amendment would be futile. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d
1410, 1434 (3d Cir.1997) (a court may decide to deny leave to amend for reasons such as undue
delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility); 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's
Federal Practice § 15.15 (3d ed. 2024) (‘An amendment is futile if it merely restates the same
facts as the original complaint in different terms, reasserts a claim on which the court previously
ruled, fails to state a legal theory, or could not withstand a motion to dismiss.”). The motion to
substitute a party (ECF No. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Access to Grand Jury
Materials to Challenge the Selection of Grand Juries (ECF No. 21) and his motions to dismiss
the indictment (ECF Nos. 23 and 24) are DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
f soe
/ fo € ent apogee
DANA © KER
WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11123578. Public record. Not legal advice.