Abrahim Fata v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 25-1889
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

BLD-012 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1889 ___________

ABRAHIM FATA, Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; COUNTY OF LEHIGH; JASON WILLS, Supervisor, Lehigh Valley Pretrial Services, Inc.; GARRETT HALL, Lehigh County Probation Office; KELSEY KREMPASKY, Lehigh County Probation Office; ROBERT SLETVOLD, Lehigh County Public Defenders Office; JILL HERSCHMAN, Lehigh County Clerk of Judicial Records; BRENDA I. SABASTRO, Lehigh County Court Room Monitor ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-04861) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 16, 2025 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 6, 2026) _________

OPINION*

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. _________

PER CURIAM

Abrahim Fata appeals pro se and in forma pauperis from the District Court’s order

dismissing his complaint. We will affirm.

In June 2018, Fata pled guilty to one count of stalking under Pennsylvania law and

was sentenced by the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County to 8-23 months’

imprisonment followed by three years’ probation. The court revoked his parole two years

later and remanded him to the county jail to serve the balance of his sentence plus his

original three-year probationary term. Fata was paroled from that revocation sentence in

January 2021. He subsequently violated his probation when he pled guilty to resisting

arrest, for which the revocation court sentenced him to 9-23 months’ imprisonment in

January 2024. The court has since repeatedly denied his requests for early or immediate

release, and all of his attempts to overturn those unfavorable decisions on appeal have

been unsuccessful.

Fata initiated this civil rights action in September 2024 by filing a complaint

under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lehigh

County, and several county employees, including his probation officer and public

defender. He contended that defendants collectively violated half-a-dozen constitutional

provisions and scores of state and federal civil rights statutes by revoking his probation

2 and frustrating his efforts to obtain relief. For these injuries he sought monetary damages

for himself and his children. The District Court screened Fata’s complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court dismissed the claims he brought on behalf of his

children for lack of standing, and the remainder under the favorable termination rule of

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Fata appeals.1

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise

plenary review of the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal under Section 1915(e). See

Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373-74 (3d Cir. 2020). We may summarily affirm if the

appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Fata’s appeal does not raise a substantial question. To the extent he appeals the

dismissal of claims he brought on behalf of his children, we reiterate that he may not

bring such claims because “he is not an attorney and cannot represent [his children] pro

se.” See In re Fata, C.A. No. 24-2033, 2025 WL 1121531, at *1 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2025)

(per curiam) (citing Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir.

1991)). With respect to his challenge to the proceedings that resulted in the revocation of

his probation and the denial of early or immediate release, we agree with the District

1 Although Fata’s Motion for a More Definite Statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(B) is denied because those rules are not applicable to filings before this Court, in light of his pro se status, we have reviewed the Motion in its entirety and taken it into account in reaching the foregoing conclusions.

3 Court that his damages claims are barred by Heck because a judgment in his favor

“would necessarily imply the invalidity of” his revocation sentence, which has not been

overturned. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005);

Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (applying Heck-bar to parole

revocation proceedings).2 Until his sentence is invalidated, Fata’s only avenue to

challenge his imprisonment in federal court is through a writ of habeas corpus. See

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d

Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

2 Fata insists that his defamation claims are not barred by Heck because the statements at issue “can be proven false now.” See C.A. Doc. 18 at pdf 40. The kind of defamation Fata alleges is the concern of state law and thus is not cognizable under Section 1983. See Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1468 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 347 (3d Cir. 1989).