Opinion
3:23-cv-133-KAP
08-04-2023
JAMES DRAUCKER, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
Recommendation
I recommend that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
Report
This is filed as a Report and Recommendation because in Burton v. Schamp, 25 F.4th 198 (3d Cir. 2022), the Court of Appeals held that in cases where judgment may be appropriate as to parties that have not consented before judgment to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C), the Magistrate Judge should proceed by Report and Recommendation to the District Court, which has Article III authority to dismiss parties and enter final judgment in the matter in favor of parties who have not filed a consent. Ordering service of a meritless complaint to determine whether parties in whose favor judgment would be entered would consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C), would waste scarce resources. Accordingly, regardless of any consent or lack thereof by the plaintiff, this format is used because review indicates that this matter should be dismissed.
James Draucker is either a pretrial detainee or a sentenced prisoner as a result of driving under the influence prosecutions in Clearfield County, Elk County, and Jefferson County. Commonwealth v. Draucker, Case no. CP-17-CR-403-2021 (Clearfield C.P.); Commonwealth v. Draucker, Case no. CP-24-CR-153-2021 (Elk C.P.); Commonwealth v. Draucker, Case no. CP-33-CR-47-2022 (Jefferson C.P.). He was extradited back to Pennsylvania from Texas earlier this year.
Draucker filed at least three pro se civil actions related to the DUI prosecutions. One, filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in March 2023 while Draucker was in custody in Texas, was assigned to Judge Ranjan and closed for failure to prosecute because Draucker did not keep Judge Ranjan informed of his address. Draucker v. District Attorney's Office, Case No. 2:23-cv-474-NR (W.D.Pa.) One, filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in May 2023, is an attempt at a habeas corpus petition claiming that Draucker's extradition from Texas was improper so he is “immune” from all prosecutions in Pennsylvania. That was assigned to Judge Eddy and has been ordered to be served as a habeas petition attacking the Jefferson County prosecution. Draucker v. Warden of Clearfield County Jail, Case No. 3:23-cv-124-CRE (W.D.Pa.).
This matter is an attempted hybrid habeas corpus petition and civil rights action. It was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in June 2023 and transferred here. Draucker wants a writ dismissing the DUI charges in Clearfield County and money damages for unlawful confinement from four defendants: the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Clearfield County's District Attorney (Ryan Sayer, Esquire), Public Defender (Jendi Schwab, Esquire, who apparently represented Draucker until permitted to withdraw on June 20, 2023), and Sheriff's Office.
I administratively closed the matter for Draucker's failure to file an adequate motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and advised plaintiff that if he submitted a corrected motion to proceed in forma pauperis but did not amend his pleading or indicate that he intends his pleading as a complaint or as a habeas corpus petition I would order the matter reopened and treat the pleading at ECF no. 1 as a civil rights complaint only. See e.g. Catanzaro v. Harry, 2011 WL 6885419, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2011)(“[T]he law does not provide for the disposition of both habeas claims and civil rights claims in a habeas corpus action.”); Turner v. Heron, 2010 WL 3361133, at *6 (M.D. N.C. Aug. 24, 2010)(“If Petitioner wishes to pursue this matter, he should file either a new petition under Section 2254 that complies with the limitations on habeas corpus jurisdiction identified above or a complaint under Section 1983 (which he must do if he seeks relief as to subjects to which the habeas corpus writ does not run.”))
Plaintiff adequately supplemented his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF no. 11, ECF no. 12, but advised that he was waiting to see what the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County did before making a choice about his pleadings. ECF no. 10. I therefore treat the complaint as an attempted civil rights complaint only, especially since no claim cognizable in habeas could have been exhausted yet.
The complaint fails to state a claim. The statement of facts is one paragraph long and in conclusory fashion claims that his Clearfield County prosecution is untimely under Pa.R.Crim. P. 600. The liability of the named defendants is based on the assertion that they “are aware of this [i.e. the Rule 600 violation] and will not acknowledge [the violation.]” As relief, the complaint seeks $5000/day for “illegal confinement” and a lump sum of “$500,000 per civil rights violation.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires the complaint to be a short and plain statement containing sufficient factual matter that if accepted as true would state a legal claim 2 that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In the Supreme Court's words, plaintiff must allege enough facts in the complaint to “nudge” a claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id., 556 U.S. at 683, quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plaintiff must in a nonconclusory way allege facts that permit the inference that each defendant he names caused the harm he alleges. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir.2005).
The complaint does not approach that line. Alleging a legal conclusion about Rule 600 does not allege a plausible claim that there is a civil rights violation for a number of reasons, the simplest being that violation of a state court procedural rule does not, without more, equate to a civil rights violation. Furthermore, if a Rule 600 violation were a civil rights violation, alleging that the defendants were aware of Draucker's position that there was a Rule 600 violation and did not act as Draucker argues they should have implies no liability on their part. Since the proceedings have not concluded in Draucker's favor he also has no claim under the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
There are additional problems specific to each defendant. This court has no jurisdiction to consider a money damages claim against Pennsylvania because of the Eleventh Amendment and because a state is not a “person” amenable to a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).
Ryan, or any other prosecutor in the office, is absolutely immune from any claim based on acts taken in prosecuting Draucker in violation of Rule 600 or any other court rule. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 410 (1976).
This court has no jurisdiction over a civil rights claim against Schwab or any other defense attorney. Federal jurisdiction cannot be based on the civil rights jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C.§ 1343(a), because as the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out, criminal defense counsel oppose state and federal governments, they do not work for them and therefore do not act under “color of state law.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 (1981); Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 91 (2009).
The “Sheriff's Office,” as an entity, is not alleged to be responsible for prosecuting, defending, or adjudicating criminal cases. If it were, that allegation would be implausible. A county sheriff's office or employee thereof does not have the legal capacity on any plausible set of facts to violate Rule 600.
Amendment of the complaint is futile and allowing amendment is an inequitable waste of the court's time. With two exceptions “federal courts treat pro se litigants the same as any other litigant.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2013). Those exceptions are liberal construction of pleadings - which does not relieve pro se plaintiffs from alleging sufficient facts in their complaints - id., 704 F.3d at 245, and giving notice to pro se inmate litigants when a motion to dismiss will be treated as a summary judgment motion. Id. Trial and error pleading is not part of providing access to court.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties are given notice that they can within fourteen days file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir.2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).