UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA bo ANTONIO J. BLACKSTONE, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22¢cv-01630° v. (SAPORITO, J.) DAUPHIN COUNTY COURT Wi, Ey. COMMON PLEAS, et al, be Ss Ban Defendants. P 2 any RE MEMORANDUM (“ey Plaintiff Antonio Blackstone, proceeding pro se and in ‘forma pauperis, filed‘'an amended complaint pursuant to A2 U.S.C. § 1983 against five defendants.! (Doc. 6). The Dauphin County Court of Common
. Pleas and the Dauphin County Probation and Parole Department (the “Court Defendants”) have moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. For the reasons described below; the motion will be granted. .
1 There is some ambiguity as to who is intended as a defendant. The _ Court has construed the defendants to be the Dauphin County Court of - Common Pleas, the Dauphin County Probation and Parole Department, Christine Cooley, and two unidentified probation administrators. See __ (Doc. 6-1 at 1, Doc. 24). Cooley did not return a request for waiver of □ service and has not appeared in this action.
I. BACKGROUND : Blackstone’s complaint is difficult to parse, but it arises from the
revocation of his probation or parole following a conviction in, the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. "See Commonwealth ve Blackstone, No. CP-22-CR-0004282-2020 (Nov. 9, 2020). He alleges that
May 9, 2021, he was arrested in Dauphin County for a probation □ ‘violation based on “incredulous and uncorroborated” charges, and detained for over five months without a Gagnon I or IThearing.? (Doe. 6 at 46). Blackstone alleges Defendants have a “custom” of asking ~~ probationers to waive their right to a Gagnon I hearing by offering an expedited Gagnon IT hearing. Blackstone refused. this’ offer, which he viewed as improperly “coaxing [him] to waive [his] constitutional rights.” (Doe. 6 at 2). □ Blackstone alleges that all defendants are liable under § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment, in violation
2,At a Gagnon I hearing, a hearing officer determines whether the _ probationer should be detained during the revocation proceedings, based on “whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe” □□□ probationer has committed a violation. Morrissey v. Brewer, '408 U.S. 471, 485, 487 (1972). The Gagnon IT hearing is a “somewhat more comprehensive hearing prior to the making of the final revocation decision.” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973). na 9 .
of his constitutional rights. The Court Defendants move to’ dismiss, arguing that they are immune to suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that Blackstone has not: stated a
plausible claim against any defendant. TI. LEGAL STANDARDS : □ AL Rule 12(b)(1) oe Pt Because the Eleventh Amendment is “a jurisdictional bar which deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction,” a motion to dismiss premised on Bleventh Amendment immunity is evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludtam □ Corp. 11 F.3d 690, 694 n.2 (3d Cir. 1996). Defendants’ motion contests
_ the sufficiency of the pleadings, so it is properly understood as a facial challenge, for which “the court must only consider the allegations of the □ complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto,in the: light most favorable to the plaintiff.” -Gould Elec. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (8d Cir. 2000).
B. Rule 12(b)(6) □□ □ Rule 12b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authérizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although a plait is □ entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond to a motion to dismiss, he has no obligation to do so—he may opt to stand on the pleadings rather than file an opposition. “The: Court must ‘nevertheless exajaiti the complaint and détenhine whethér it-statée a claim:ai a matter of law, ‘Stackhouse ¥- Macurkidwice, 951 Fed 29, 30 (3d Cir, 1991); Anchorage “Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd of Tax Review, 922 Fad’ 168, 114 (3d Cir.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted nly if, .
accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as trie and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff s claims lack facial plausibility.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Ine, 643. F.34-77, 84 (8d Cir. 2011) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, BAA, 555-56 (2007) In deciding “the motion, the Cage may consider the facts alleged on the. face of the. complaint; a well i “documents incorporated into the complaint by véivretice, and matters of which ‘a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Ine. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd, 551 US. 308, 328 (2007). ‘Although the Court mist aocept ‘the fact allegations in the complaint as true, itis not compelled'to accept
“unsupported conclusions and unwarranted. inferences, or) a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Morrow v. Balaski,) 719. F.3d □
165 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d.187,195 Cir. 2007)... eo Be □□□ _ Section 1983 □ Section 1983 is the vehicle by which private citizens” may seek redress for violations of federal constitutional rights committed by state □□ ‘officials. 42. U:S.C. § 1983: The statute states, in pertinent part: □□ Ewery ‘person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, —-yegulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory orthe District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, arly eitizen’ of the United States or other’ person within ‘the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, □ or other proper proceéding for redress... se To state a cause of action under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege
that: (1). the conduct complained of was committed by persons acting
under color of state law: and (2) the conduct violated a right, privilege, or □□ immunity: secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 421, F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting West v. Atkins,.487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)). “A defendant inva civil: | rights action must have personal involvement in -the alleged wrongs.” -
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). “Personal involvement requires particular ‘allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence.” Dooley ve Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 37 4 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207). : : Discussion The Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suits brought in federal court by both their’ own citizens and citizens of other states. “Therefore, unless Congress has specifically abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity or a state has unequivocally consented to suit □□□ [federal courts) lack jurisdiction to grant relief in such cases.” Christ the King Manor, Ine. 1 Sec'y U.S. Deptt of Health & Human Servs., 730 Fad 291, 318 (3d Cir 2018) (quotation omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA bo ANTONIO J. BLACKSTONE, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22¢cv-01630° v. (SAPORITO, J.) DAUPHIN COUNTY COURT Wi, Ey. COMMON PLEAS, et al, be Ss Ban Defendants. P 2 any RE MEMORANDUM (“ey Plaintiff Antonio Blackstone, proceeding pro se and in ‘forma pauperis, filed‘'an amended complaint pursuant to A2 U.S.C. § 1983 against five defendants.! (Doc. 6). The Dauphin County Court of Common
. Pleas and the Dauphin County Probation and Parole Department (the “Court Defendants”) have moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. For the reasons described below; the motion will be granted. .
1 There is some ambiguity as to who is intended as a defendant. The _ Court has construed the defendants to be the Dauphin County Court of - Common Pleas, the Dauphin County Probation and Parole Department, Christine Cooley, and two unidentified probation administrators. See __ (Doc. 6-1 at 1, Doc. 24). Cooley did not return a request for waiver of □ service and has not appeared in this action.
I. BACKGROUND : Blackstone’s complaint is difficult to parse, but it arises from the
revocation of his probation or parole following a conviction in, the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. "See Commonwealth ve Blackstone, No. CP-22-CR-0004282-2020 (Nov. 9, 2020). He alleges that
May 9, 2021, he was arrested in Dauphin County for a probation □ ‘violation based on “incredulous and uncorroborated” charges, and detained for over five months without a Gagnon I or IThearing.? (Doe. 6 at 46). Blackstone alleges Defendants have a “custom” of asking ~~ probationers to waive their right to a Gagnon I hearing by offering an expedited Gagnon IT hearing. Blackstone refused. this’ offer, which he viewed as improperly “coaxing [him] to waive [his] constitutional rights.” (Doe. 6 at 2). □ Blackstone alleges that all defendants are liable under § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment, in violation
2,At a Gagnon I hearing, a hearing officer determines whether the _ probationer should be detained during the revocation proceedings, based on “whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe” □□□ probationer has committed a violation. Morrissey v. Brewer, '408 U.S. 471, 485, 487 (1972). The Gagnon IT hearing is a “somewhat more comprehensive hearing prior to the making of the final revocation decision.” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973). na 9 .
of his constitutional rights. The Court Defendants move to’ dismiss, arguing that they are immune to suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that Blackstone has not: stated a
plausible claim against any defendant. TI. LEGAL STANDARDS : □ AL Rule 12(b)(1) oe Pt Because the Eleventh Amendment is “a jurisdictional bar which deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction,” a motion to dismiss premised on Bleventh Amendment immunity is evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludtam □ Corp. 11 F.3d 690, 694 n.2 (3d Cir. 1996). Defendants’ motion contests
_ the sufficiency of the pleadings, so it is properly understood as a facial challenge, for which “the court must only consider the allegations of the □ complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto,in the: light most favorable to the plaintiff.” -Gould Elec. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (8d Cir. 2000).
B. Rule 12(b)(6) □□ □ Rule 12b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authérizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although a plait is □ entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond to a motion to dismiss, he has no obligation to do so—he may opt to stand on the pleadings rather than file an opposition. “The: Court must ‘nevertheless exajaiti the complaint and détenhine whethér it-statée a claim:ai a matter of law, ‘Stackhouse ¥- Macurkidwice, 951 Fed 29, 30 (3d Cir, 1991); Anchorage “Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd of Tax Review, 922 Fad’ 168, 114 (3d Cir.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted nly if, .
accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as trie and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff s claims lack facial plausibility.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Ine, 643. F.34-77, 84 (8d Cir. 2011) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, BAA, 555-56 (2007) In deciding “the motion, the Cage may consider the facts alleged on the. face of the. complaint; a well i “documents incorporated into the complaint by véivretice, and matters of which ‘a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Ine. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd, 551 US. 308, 328 (2007). ‘Although the Court mist aocept ‘the fact allegations in the complaint as true, itis not compelled'to accept
“unsupported conclusions and unwarranted. inferences, or) a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Morrow v. Balaski,) 719. F.3d □
165 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d.187,195 Cir. 2007)... eo Be □□□ _ Section 1983 □ Section 1983 is the vehicle by which private citizens” may seek redress for violations of federal constitutional rights committed by state □□ ‘officials. 42. U:S.C. § 1983: The statute states, in pertinent part: □□ Ewery ‘person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, —-yegulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory orthe District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, arly eitizen’ of the United States or other’ person within ‘the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, □ or other proper proceéding for redress... se To state a cause of action under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege
that: (1). the conduct complained of was committed by persons acting
under color of state law: and (2) the conduct violated a right, privilege, or □□ immunity: secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 421, F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting West v. Atkins,.487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)). “A defendant inva civil: | rights action must have personal involvement in -the alleged wrongs.” -
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). “Personal involvement requires particular ‘allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence.” Dooley ve Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 37 4 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207). : : Discussion The Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suits brought in federal court by both their’ own citizens and citizens of other states. “Therefore, unless Congress has specifically abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity or a state has unequivocally consented to suit □□□ [federal courts) lack jurisdiction to grant relief in such cases.” Christ the King Manor, Ine. 1 Sec'y U.S. Deptt of Health & Human Servs., 730 Fad 291, 318 (3d Cir 2018) (quotation omitted). = eo, For Eleventh Aniendment purposes, the Court of Common Pleas is
an instrument of state government, and immune ‘from suit iin foderal court. Benn v. First Jud Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 238, 235 n.1, 240-41 (8d
Cir. 20085); see, e.g, Vasquez v. Gale, No. 1:20-CV-01805, 2022 WL 21783831, at +10 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2022), report and recomniendation adopted, 2022 WL. 21783906 (Aug. 29, 2022); Lecadre v City of Harrisburg, No. 1:15-CV-01332, 2015 WL 5693138, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept.
2015). The Dauphin County Probation and Parole: Department is
‘immune from suit for the same reason. See Ha ybarger v. La wrence Cnty.
Adult Prob. & Parole, 551 F.3d 193, 198 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Pennsylvania’s
_ judicial districts, including their probation and parole departments, are entitled to Eleventh. Amendment immunity.”). Accordingly, Blackstone: cannot sue either of the Court Defendants in this case.3 oo
As for. Blackstone’s claims against particular employees, the □
Eleventh Amendment: bars claims against officers. in their ‘official capacity, but not their individual capacity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 USS. 21, 1991) (The “Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against
guits to impose ‘individual and personal liability’ on state officials under
1983.”); see, e.g., Vasquez, 2022 WL 21783831, at *10-11; Robertson □□□
Anglemeyer, No. 1:20-CV-01736, 2022 WL 1133826, at *9 (M.D; Pa. Jan. - 31, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 613773 (Mar. 2,
3 Further, the Court Defendants are not “persons” subject. to. suit ‘under § 1983. Reiff v. Phila. Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 827, F.Supp. 319, 324 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (“[Glovernmental entities that are considered - ‘arms of the state’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes are not! ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983 and consequently are not among those liable for violations of the civil rights statute.”) (quoting Will v. Mich, _. Dep’ of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989)); see also Callahan v. City of □ Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 669-70 (3d Cir. 2000),
2022), po
It appears that Blackstone sought to sue several employees in their individual capacities. See (Doc. 6 at 2,-Doc. 6-1 at 1). However, none of □
the individuals ‘listed as defendants are referenced in the body of the complaint; all allegations. are attributed to “Defendants” collectively. “Where there are multiple events and defendants at issue, alleging personal involvement cannot be accomplished by repeatedly and- collectively referring to the Defendants’ as a sroup without clarifying the
. specific acts of each Defendant that forms the basis for that individual’s liability.” Graham v. Moon Lodge Chips Corp., No. 24-CV-0124, 2024 WL 8275960, at *5 (E.D. Pa. July 1, 2024) (citing Lawal v. McDonald, 546F, ~~ App’x 107, 113-14 (8d Cir. 2014)).4 Accordingly, this complaint: does not state a claim against: any defendant. i □ LEAVETOAMEND — : =. □
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that if a civil
4 See also Buxton ¥. Wetzel, No. 2:21-CV-1053, 2022 WL 4084292, at*7 (W.D. Pa. Aug: 3, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4082129 (Sept. 6, 2022) (Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to’ . Defendants collectively and Plaintiff does not attribute any misconduct to any specific individual. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations lack the requisite personal involvement . . .”); Mitchell v. Jones, No. 1:21-CV-131, 2022WL -.2068256, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 8, 2022). □
rights complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a dlaiin, the: . district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendinent would be. inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir, 2002). The Court notes that after’ this complaint was filed, Blackstone filed a similar complaint against some of the same defendants in another case, Blackstone v. Cooley, et al, 1:23-ev-00260- YK (M. D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2023). That complaint sought relief ander 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the denial of Gagnon hearings, and for his arrest based
on probation violation charges in the. Dauphin County case referenced above. The Court dismissed that case with prejudice pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir: 1984), because Blackstone failed to prosecute it. (1:23-ev-00260-YK, Doe. 23 (Feb. 14, 2024). . od “A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits,” which “precludes later relitigating the dismissed claims.” Papera
v. Pennsylvania Quarried Bluestone Co., 948 F.3d 607, 610- 1 (3d Cir.
2020) (citations omitted); see also Jackson v. Dow Chem. Co., 518 FApp’x 101 (8d Cir, 2013): (dismissal pursuant to Poulis “operated las ati adjudication on the merits for claim preclusion purposes”). Accordingly,
□
_ state a claim against any defendant. | □ □ “ov. CoNcLUSION oS : □ ‘The Court Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted] Because □ Court Defendants are dismissed for lack of subject ‘matter | : PO, jurisdiction, the dismissal is without prejudice. Aldossati on Behalf of Aldossari v. Ripp, 49 Rath 236, 262 (3d Cir. 2022). Noting that pps de civil
“tights plaintifis are generally afforded an opportunity to - amend a complaint before the case is dismissed in its entirety, see Fletcher Hardee Corp, v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007), □□□□ Court will afford Blackstone one chance to file an amended covepiaint against appropriate defendants. :
Dated: September 5, 2024" s/Joseph E. Saporito, Je : ' JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. 2 □□ ' United States District Judge apo
eg oe