Pittman v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02203
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GABRIEL ISHAM PITTMAN, :

Plaintiff : CIV. ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-2203

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., :

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the case is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The case will be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file a new case if he subsequently obtains a separate writ of habeas corpus or other appropriate court order that either (1) concludes that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) erroneously calculated his parole eligibility date, or (2) otherwise invalidates his underlying conviction or sentence. I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Gabriel Isham Pittman, brings the instant case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that defendants, various employees of the DOC, violated his civil rights by erroneously calculating his minimum parole eligibility date as December 7, 2024, rather than December 7, 2023. (Doc. 1). Pittman also advances a number of challenges to the legality and

constitutionality of his underlying criminal conviction and sentence. (Id.) He filed the case on December 11, 2024, and the court received and docketed his complaint on December 20, 2024. (Doc. 1). Pittman additionally moved

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). On January 6, 2025, the court denied Pittman’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that he is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis because he has previously accrued “three strikes” under the terms

of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). (Doc. 6). The court ordered Pittman to pay the requisite filing fee within twenty-one days or the case would be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) Pittman timely paid the filing fee on January 16, 2025.

II. DISCUSSION The court has screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A1 and concludes that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it is barred by Heck, 512 U.S. at 477.

1 28 U.S.C. §1915A provides:

(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. Under Heck, a plaintiff seeking to “recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by

actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” must “prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 486-87. Claims challenging a state’s parole eligibility calculation are subject to the Heck favorable termination rule. See, e.g., Harper v. DOC, No. 3:16-CV-2366,

2018 WL 660924, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2018); Cook v. Pa. DOC Personnel at SCI-Huntingdon, No. 1:11-CV-259, 2011 WL 950138, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2011); Benson v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 947 F. Supp. 827, 831-33 (D.N.J.

1996). Here, Pittman asserts that DOC officials erroneously calculated his minimum parole eligibility date as December 7, 2024, rather than December

(b) Grounds for dismissal.--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. 7, 2023. (Doc. 1). This claim is clearly barred by Heck. See Harper, 2018 WL 660924, at *2; Cook, 2011 WL 950138, at *2; Benson, 947 F. Supp. at 831-

33. Pittman’s other claims are likewise barred by Heck. Although the exact nature of plaintiff’s claims is not exactly clear, he appears to generally assert

that: (1) he is being incarcerated as part of a conspiracy by the federal and state governments to deny a minimum number of parole applications in order to funnel federal funds to state prisons; (2) he is being illegally incarcerated because the federal government is commandeering the state government to

continue incarcerating him in violation of the constitution; (3) his incarceration amounts to unconstitutional slavery; (4) his incarceration is based on racial discrimination; (5) he is being incarcerated in retaliation for

previously challenging the legality of his conviction and sentence; and (6) two criminal sentences he has been given should be treated as concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive sentences. (See generally Doc. 1). All of these claims clearly constitute challenges to the legality of Pittman’s

conviction or sentence and are therefore subject to dismissal under Heck. Before dismissing a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a district court must permit a curative

amendment unless the amendment would be inequitable or futile. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245. The court will deny leave to file an amended complaint in the instant case as futile because Pittman’s claims clearly fail as a matter of

law. Dismissal of the case, however, will be without prejudice to Pittman’s right to file a new case if he subsequently obtains a separate writ of habeas corpus or other appropriate court order that either (1) concludes that the

DOC erroneously calculated his parole eligibility date, or (2) otherwise invalidates his underlying conviction or sentence. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486- 87. III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this case will be dismissed. An appropriate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion Malachy E. Mannion United States District Judge

Dated: January 21, 2025 24-2203-01