Wiggins v. McAndrew, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1410

JOHN WIGGINS, Plaintiff v. SHERIFF MARK McANDREW, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1410

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 6, 2018

(JUDGE MANNION)

MEMORANDUM

After the plaintiff, John Wiggins, was convicted and sentenced to prison by the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, he filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against defendants Lackawanna County and Lackawanna County Sheriff Mark McAndrew alleging that he was confined in prison longer than the maximum sentence which was imposed by the court. Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss, (Doc. 7), the plaintiff's complaint, (Doc. 1), filed by the defendants. Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that he was deprived of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss of defendants will be GRANTED. The plaintiff will, however, be permitted to amend his Eighth Amendment claim in Count I and his Monell claim in Count III.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following allegations are taken from the plaintiff's complaint. According to the complaint, plaintiff was arrested on October 14, 2011 for use/possession of drug paraphernalia and, he was incarcerated in Lackawanna County Prison ("LCP"). The plaintiff was incarcerated for two years and six months while he was awaiting trial. On July 3, 2014, he filed a motion to dismiss the charges in the county court based on the failure to give him a prompt trial. The plaintiff's motion was denied and he remained in LCP for more than three years in total while he was awaiting his trial.

On December 10, 2014, the plaintiff had his trial and he alleges that he was found guilty of one charge that carried a minimum of 18 months to a maximum of 38 months term of incarceration. The plaintiff alleges that he had already served and surpassed the maximum sentence by almost two months while he was incarcerated in LCP awaiting trial. The plaintiff alleges that even though he should have been released from confinement when he was sentenced, since he already served in excess of the maximum time allowed for in his sentence, the Lackawanna County Sheriff transferred him to SCI-Graterford prison.

The plaintiff alleges that when his paperwork was being processed at SCI-Graterford, the prison officials realized that he had already served in excess of his maximum sentence. Thus, the officials at SCI-Graterford determined that the plaintiff could not be confined in prison, and they placed him in a holding area. The prison officials at SCI-Graterford then informed theLackawanna County Sheriff that they could not confine the plaintiff since he had already served the maximum sentence allowed. They requested the Lackawanna County Sheriff to pick up the plaintiff. The following day, the Lackawanna County Sheriff picked up the plaintiff at SCI-Graterford and took him back to LCP. Thus, the plaintiff alleges that defendants Lackawanna County and the Sheriff took custody of him knowing that he had already served and exceeded the maximum sentence time allowed.

The plaintiff then alleges that even though he should have been released from custody, the defendants incarcerated him once again in LCP for an additional one year over the maximum sentence he had already served. The plaintiff also avers that "[u]pon information and belief, [he] was not released from [LCP] until sometime in the winter of 2015."

The plaintiff concludes that the conduct of defendants violated his rights under the United States Constitution and under the Pennsylvania State Constitution. The plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of defendants' misconduct, he suffered physical injury, financial loss, severe emotional distress, and loss of liberty.

The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and1343(a). The court can also exercise pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims that the plaintiff is raising under 28 U.S.C. §1367. Venue is proper in this district since plaintiff and the defendants are located here and, since the claims accrued here.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 10, 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action by filing, through counsel, a complaint. (Doc. 1). His complaint consists of three counts and he alleges violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiff's constitutional claims are brought under §1983.

Specifically, the plaintiff raises the following three counts in his complaint. In Count I, the plaintiff raises a single claim joining three distinct theories of liability against all of the defendants, namely, "malicious prosecution/false imprisonment and [false] arrest." In Count II, the plaintiff raises a due process claim against all defendants under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Count III, the plaintiff raises a municipal liability claim against defendants under Monell.

As relief, the plaintiff seeks statutory damages, compensatory damages and punitive damages against all defendants. The plaintiff also requests attorneys' fees and costs.

In addition to suing defendants Lackawanna County and Sheriff McAndrew, the plaintiff names John Does 1-10 as defendants whom he alleges "were agents, servants, workmen, or employees of [the county and the sheriff]." Also, the plaintiff sues the Sheriff in both his individual and official capacity.

After the two named defendants were served with the complaint, they filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on October 16,2017. (Doc. 7). The defendants filed their brief in support on October 30, 2017.¹ (Doc. 10). The plaintiff was granted an extension of time and, he filed his brief in opposition on December 15, 2017. (Doc. 17). No reply brief was filed by the defendants.²

III. DISCUSSION

"Section 1983 provides remedies for deprivations of rights established in the Constitution or federal laws. It does not, by its own terms, create substantive rights." Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). To state a claim under §1983, "a plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived him or her of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States." Id. (citations omitted). "A defendant in a civil rights action must have personalinvolvement in the alleged wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior." Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207-08 (3d Cir. 1988). See also Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Rode).

1. John Doe Defendants

The court gives notice to the plaintiff that his claims against the unnamed county employees, including deputy sheriffs, i.e., John Doe defendants 1-10, will be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) if he fails to identify them and replace them with the party's real names by filing an amended complaint within 14 days of the date of this memorandum and accompanying order. Rule 4(m) provides, in part, that "[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." The presumptive time period for the plaintiff to have served his complaint on his Doe defendants has long passed. The defendants did not move to dismiss the John Doe defendants and thus, the court is now advising the plaintiff that it will dismiss these unnamed defendants on its own unless he identifies them and serves them as directed. See Bilby v. Lacey, 2016 WL 859384, *6-*7 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 27, 2016), adopted by 2016 WL 927192 (M.D.Pa. Mar. 4, 2016). The court also notes that the plaintiff's complaint does not sufficiently allege the personal involvement regarding the violations of his constitutional rights by each of these ten defendants as required.

2. Pennsylvania Constitutional Claims and State Law Claims

The plaintiff appears to be raising claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution and state law claims but, for the most part, he does not specifically allege any such claims in his complaint. The only state claims which the court finds that the plaintiff specifically references in his complaint are for alleged violations of his rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. However, the plaintiff cannot maintain a private action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Smithson v. Rizzo, 2015 WL 1636143 (M.D.Pa. April 7, 2015); Moeller v. Bradford Co., 444 F.Supp.2d 316, 327 n. 13 (M.D.Pa. 2011) ("Pennsylvania has no statutory equivalent to 42 U.S.C. §1983, which provides a private right of action for a federal constitutional violation."). Since the plaintiff only seeks monetary damages in his complaint, all of his claims for violations of his rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution will be dismissed with prejudice.

Moreover, insofar as the plaintiff states in his complaint that his federal constitutional claims raised in Counts I and II also violated his "common law [rights]" and he generally refers to "the laws of the Commonwealth", the defendants maintain that they are immune from any state law claims under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act ("PSTCA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§8541, et seq. Section 8541 of the PSTCA provides that "no local agency shall be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the local agency or an employee thereof or any other person." The defendants are entitled to immunity to the extent that the plaintiff is raisingindependent state law claims in his complaint. "The PSTCA grants local agencies immunity from liability for damages caused by agency employees, subject to eight specifically enumerated statutory exceptions." Credico v. West Goshen Police, 2013 WL 6077168, *2 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 18, 2013); see also...