Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-687
08-22-2018
WILLIAM G. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. LEO DUNN, Chair of the Pennsylvania Department [sic] of Probation and Parole, Defendant.
Judge Nora Barry Fischer/Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, be dismissed pre-service pursuant to the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
II. REPORT
William G. Thompson ("Plaintiff") is currently a prisoner serving a life sentence without parole under a conviction for first degree murder, which murder was committed by Petitioner while he was not a juvenile.
Plaintiff's criminal docket in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is available at:
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP02CR00026102002 (site last visited 8/22/2018).
Because Plaintiff has been granted IFP status, ECF No. 5, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) ("[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid [by a person granted IFP status], the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that - (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal- (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.").
Plaintiff has filed the instant prisoner civil rights action, seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania parole statute as construed by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013), wherein the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the Pennsylvania parole statute in light of the United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) (holding that the automatic imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole on a juvenile criminal violates the Eighth Amendment) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (holding that Miller applied retroactively to convicts serving life sentences who were juveniles at the time of the commission of their crimes). In Batts, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted Pennsylvania statutory law, including the Pennsylvania parole statute, to permit, in effect, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, to grant parole to such juveniles as were convicted of crimes which subjected them to an automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole. Plaintiff maintains that this interpretation of Pennsylvania statutes by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court renders those statutes unconstitutional insofar as such an interpretation denies him both substantive due process and equal protection. ECF No. 8 at 11.
A complaint nearly identical to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed in the case of Henry v. 61 Pa. Stat. § 331.21 (1941), Civ. A. No. 17-4583, 2017 WL 6406488 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2017), ECF No. 1 (Complaint). The Complaint in Henry is substantively identical to the Amended Complaint herein, except for the identities of the parties. While Plaintiff originally named the same defendant in the original Complaint filed in the case at bar, ECF No. 1, as was named in the Complaint in Henry, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to name an individual with a capacity to be sued rather than naming the parole statute as a defendant.
The Complaint in Henry is available on PACER at:
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/doc1/153016650483 (site last visited 8/22/218). A copy of the Complaint is also attached hereto as Appendix 1.
Pursuant to the screening provisions of the PLRA, the Court in Henry dismissed the Complaint therein pre-service for failure to state a clam upon which relief can be granted. Henry v. 61 Pa. Stat. § 331.21 (1941), 2017 WL 6406488 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2017).
A copy of the opinion in Henry is attached hereto as Appendix 2. --------
The Court adopts the opinion in Henry and recommends that the instant Amended Complaint be dismissed pre-service for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Date: August 22, 2018 cc: The Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
WILLIAM G. THOMPSON
GM9858
SCI Coal Township
1 Kelley Dr.
Coal Township, PA 17866