IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LA’KEYA KEO, : Civil No. 1:25-CV-125 : Plaintiff, : : (Judge Munley) v. : : (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom) : NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL : POLICE DEP’T, : : Defendant. :
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Factual Background
This case comes before us for a screening review of the plaintiff’s civil complaint. The plaintiff, La’Keya Keo, filed this action against the Northeastern Regional Police Department (“NRPD”) in York, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). Keo’s complaint asserts allegations familiar to this court.1 Keo claims that she called 9-1-1 after she became homeless, and that upon responding to her call, the police took her to York Hospital, where her belongings were allegedly stolen, and then involuntarily
1 , , Civ. No. 1:24-CV-1790; , Civ. No. 1:24-CV-1791; , Civ. No. 1:25-CV-124. committed her to Lancaster Behavioral Health Hospital. (Doc. 1 at 2). Keo attached a copy of a complaint she made at Lancaster Behavioral
Health, in which she believes that she was misdiagnosed and forcibly medicated.2 ( at 3). She asserts that she is now at a different treatment center. ( at 2). As relief, she requests monetary damages
of up to $16.7 billion. ( .). Along with the complaint, Keo filed a motion for leave to proceed
. (Docs. 5-6). We will conditionally grant Keo’s motion to proceed for screening purposes only, but after a screening review, we recommend that this complaint be dismissed.
II. Discussion
A. Screening of Complaints – Standard of Review We have a statutory obligation to preliminarily review complaints brought by plaintiffs given leave to proceed . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review such complaints to determine
whether there are frivolous or malicious claims, or if the complaint fails
2 It appears that Keo filed a separate action against Lancaster Behavioral Health arising out of these allegations, which was transferred from this court to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. , Civ. No. 1:24-CV-1788. to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This statutory preliminary screening mirrors review under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
With respect to this legal benchmark, under federal pleading standards a plaintiff is required to set forth a “short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief under this pleading standard, a court must accept the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and accept “all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-
movant.” , 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court is not required to accept legal conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
; , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice”). As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has aptly summarized: [A]fter , when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two- part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” at 1950. In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts. , 515 F.3d at 234–35. As the Supreme Court instructed in , “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” , 129 S.Ct. at 1949. This “plausibility” determination will be “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Generally, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court relies on the complaint and its attached exhibits, as well as matters of public record. , 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007). A court can also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached] documents.” , 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Additionally, if the complaint relies on the contents of a document not physically attached to the complaint but whose authenticity is not in dispute, the
court may consider such document in its determination. , 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002). However, the court may not rely on any other part of the record when
deciding a motion to dismiss. , 20 F.3d at 1261. Finally, when reviewing a complaint, we are reminded that
such complaints are to be construed liberally, “so ‘as to do substantial justice.’” , 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f)). We must apply the relevant law even if the plaintiff
does not mention it by name. , 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing , 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)). B. This Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted.
After review, we conclude that Keo’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We read Keo’s claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserting a due process violation arising out of her involuntary commitment. , 774 F. Supp. 331,
340-41 (M.D. Pa. 1991). Section 1983 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 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 proceeding for redress.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LA’KEYA KEO, : Civil No. 1:25-CV-125 : Plaintiff, : : (Judge Munley) v. : : (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom) : NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL : POLICE DEP’T, : : Defendant. :
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Factual Background
This case comes before us for a screening review of the plaintiff’s civil complaint. The plaintiff, La’Keya Keo, filed this action against the Northeastern Regional Police Department (“NRPD”) in York, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). Keo’s complaint asserts allegations familiar to this court.1 Keo claims that she called 9-1-1 after she became homeless, and that upon responding to her call, the police took her to York Hospital, where her belongings were allegedly stolen, and then involuntarily
1 , , Civ. No. 1:24-CV-1790; , Civ. No. 1:24-CV-1791; , Civ. No. 1:25-CV-124. committed her to Lancaster Behavioral Health Hospital. (Doc. 1 at 2). Keo attached a copy of a complaint she made at Lancaster Behavioral
Health, in which she believes that she was misdiagnosed and forcibly medicated.2 ( at 3). She asserts that she is now at a different treatment center. ( at 2). As relief, she requests monetary damages
of up to $16.7 billion. ( .). Along with the complaint, Keo filed a motion for leave to proceed
. (Docs. 5-6). We will conditionally grant Keo’s motion to proceed for screening purposes only, but after a screening review, we recommend that this complaint be dismissed.
II. Discussion
A. Screening of Complaints – Standard of Review We have a statutory obligation to preliminarily review complaints brought by plaintiffs given leave to proceed . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review such complaints to determine
whether there are frivolous or malicious claims, or if the complaint fails
2 It appears that Keo filed a separate action against Lancaster Behavioral Health arising out of these allegations, which was transferred from this court to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. , Civ. No. 1:24-CV-1788. to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This statutory preliminary screening mirrors review under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
With respect to this legal benchmark, under federal pleading standards a plaintiff is required to set forth a “short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief under this pleading standard, a court must accept the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and accept “all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-
movant.” , 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court is not required to accept legal conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
; , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice”). As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has aptly summarized: [A]fter , when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two- part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” at 1950. In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts. , 515 F.3d at 234–35. As the Supreme Court instructed in , “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” , 129 S.Ct. at 1949. This “plausibility” determination will be “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Generally, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court relies on the complaint and its attached exhibits, as well as matters of public record. , 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007). A court can also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached] documents.” , 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Additionally, if the complaint relies on the contents of a document not physically attached to the complaint but whose authenticity is not in dispute, the
court may consider such document in its determination. , 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002). However, the court may not rely on any other part of the record when
deciding a motion to dismiss. , 20 F.3d at 1261. Finally, when reviewing a complaint, we are reminded that
such complaints are to be construed liberally, “so ‘as to do substantial justice.’” , 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f)). We must apply the relevant law even if the plaintiff
does not mention it by name. , 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing , 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)). B. This Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted.
After review, we conclude that Keo’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We read Keo’s claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserting a due process violation arising out of her involuntary commitment. , 774 F. Supp. 331,
340-41 (M.D. Pa. 1991). Section 1983 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 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 proceeding for redress.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, “Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” , 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Section 1983 “does not create any new substantive rights but instead provides a remedy for the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” (citation omitted). Accordingly, to state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must plead two elements: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a
“person” acting under color of law; and (2) that conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. , 219 F.3d
261, 268 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); , 920 F.2d 1135, 1141–42 (3d Cir. 1990). Here, Keo sued the NRPD, alleging that two of its officers involuntarily committed her to the hospital. Thus, we read her claim as
asserting liability under a theory. A municipal entity may be liable for a constitutional violation under § 1983 if the violation was a direct result of the entity’s policy, custom, or practice.
, 436 U.S. 658, 695 (1978). However, an entity may not be held liable “solely because injuries were inflicted by its
agents or employees.” , 503 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir. 2007). Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate a “direct causal link” between the alleged constitutional violation and the
municipal policy or custom. , 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). In cases where a plaintiff is alleging a failure to train officers, the
plaintiff must demonstrate that the “municipality’s failure to train police officers ... amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.” , 489 U.S. at 388. To
establish such a claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate “contemporaneous knowledge of the offending incident or knowledge of a prior pattern of similar incidents,” coupled with “circumstances under which the supervisor’s actions or inaction could be found to have communicated a message of approval to the offending subordinate.”
, 159 F.3d 120, 127 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing , 132 F.3d 20, 25 (3d Cir. 1997)). Keo’s complaint is completely devoid of any factual allegations to
support a claim against NRPD. She alleges no policy or custom of the department that led to two of its officers involuntarily committing
her. Further, there are no allegations from which we can infer that the unnamed officers’ supervisors at NRPD were aware of the incident or of a pattern of similar incidents and communicated some message of
approval. Instead, the complaint simply asserts in a conclusory fashion that two unnamed NRPD officers involuntarily committed her. Accordingly, we conclude that the complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim
against NRPD, and the complaint should be dismissed. However, while we have concluded that Keo’s complaint does not state a claim at this time, recognizing that Keo is a litigant, we
recommend that the court allow her an opportunity to amend her complaint to endeavor to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. , 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007); , 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004).
III. Recommendation Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice to the
plaintiff endeavoring to correct the defects cited in this report, provided that the plaintiff acts within 21 days of any dismissal order.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 20th day of May 2025.
Daryl F. Bloom Chief United States Magistrate Judge