Opinion
Civil No. 3:19-cv-446
03-28-2019
PARIS GANTZ, Plaintiff v. PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SCI ROCKVIEW, Defendants
() MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Paris Gantz ("Gantz"), an inmate confined at the Rockview State Correctional Institution, in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Rockview"), initiated the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Gantz also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). An initial screening of the complaint has been conducted and, for the reasons set forth below, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, and Gantz will be directed to file a properly supported amended complaint.
I. Screening Provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996), authorizes a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court is required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This initial screening is to be done as soon as practicable and need not await service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Section 1915(e)(2) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Section 1915A(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:
(b) On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
II. Discussion
Gantz alleges that his personal property was confiscated at SCI-Rockview when he was temporarily transferred to the Restricted Housing Unit. (Doc. 1). Named as Defendants are the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and SCI-Rockview. (Id.). For relief, Gantz seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at pp. 6-7).
In order for Gantz to state a claim under § 1983, he must allege a deprivation of a federally protected right and that this deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, 396 F.3d 314, 319 (3d Cir. 2005). Gantz's complaint fails to make this requisite showing against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and SCI-Rockview, because these Defendants do not qualify as persons under § 1983. Therefore, they cannot be held liable under the statute. It is well-settled that neither a state nor its agencies are considered a "person" as that term is defined under § 1983 and, therefore, are not subject to a § 1983 suit. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25-27, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). Consequently, Gantz's claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the SCI-Rockview are barred, as they are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (holding that a state may not be sued in federal court pursuant to § 1983, and is not a "person" for purposes of that provision). Moreover, these Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Lavia v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000) (finding that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections "shares in the Commonwealth's Eleventh Amendment immunity"). Gantz's complaint thus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and SCI-Rockview.
III. Conclusion
Given Gantz's pro se status, he will be afforded an opportunity to file an amended complaint to properly name any Defendants and sufficiently state a claim for relief against those Defendants. Failure to file a properly supported amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action without further notice of court.
A separate Order will issue. Dated: March 28, 2019
/s/_________
Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge