Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-1467
04-09-2018
ROGER WILSON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. GOV'T, Defendant.
cc: ROGER WILSON 516 Sinclair Street, Apt. 501 McKeesport, PA 15132 (via U.S. First Class Mail) Jennifer R. Andrade United States Attorney's Office (via ECF electronic notification)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
The Court respectfully recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) be granted and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
II. REPORT
A. Procedural Background
1. Criminal Proceedings
On October 10, 2007, Plaintiff pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to one count of conspiracy to possess and possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b)(1)(C). (2:06-cr-00316: ECF No. 290; 2:07-cr-00101: ECF No. 42). On January 8, 2008, Plaintiff was sentenced to a term of sixty-five (65) months' imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release of six (6) years. Plaintiff was released to supervision on December 1, 2011. (2:06-cr-00316: ECF No. 600 at 2).
Proceedings in connection with revocation of his supervised release and competency were commenced in 2012. See generally Crim. No. 06-316 (W.D. Pa.) at ECF Nos. 623, 626; Crim. No. 07-101 (W.D. Pa.) at ECF Nos. 141, 144. Specifically, on March 2, 2012, the probation officer filed a request for a show cause hearing for modification of the conditions of supervised release to add the condition that Plaintiff undergo mental health testing and, if necessary, treatment. See Crim. No. 06-316 at ECF No. 600 at pg. 2.
On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff appeared with counsel before the Court for a supervised release and revocation hearing. Thereafter, Plaintiff was committed to the United States BOP in order to complete a mental health evaluation. On January 4, 2013, following a competency hearing, Plaintiff was committed to the custody of the Attorney General for restorative hospitalization. On December 20, 2013, the Court found that further custody of Plaintiff by the Attorney General for purposes of evaluation and treatment was not warranted and Plaintiff was released from custody.
On January 21, 2016, the U.S. Probation Officer requested that Plaintiff be discharged from supervision, prior to its original expiration date. On February 9, 2016, without objection from the parties, the court terminated Plaintiff's supervision.
2. Prior Civil Action No. 17-301
On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a prior first civil action in connection with his revocation of supervised release and competency proceedings, at Civ. No. 17-301 (W.D. Pa.). These claims parallel and repeat those made herein. Plaintiff named as defendant the United States Government (as well as Office of the Attorney General, subsequently withdrawn by Plaintiff). (ECF No. 14. Plaintiff alleged that he was illegally detained between October 2012 and December 2013 based on statements made by his probation officer, who he alleges "made up charges and perjured [sic] herself." Id. at 3, 6; see also Crim. No. 06-316 (W.D. Pa.) at ECF Nos. 623, 626; Crim. No. 07-101 (W.D. Pa.) at ECF Nos. 141, 144. Plaintiff complained further that as a result of the detention, he lost his dating website business and sought $500 million in damages. See id. at ECF No. 14 at 4, 6. Plaintiff's allegations were construed as claims brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq., and dismissed on October 24, 2017 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Civ. No. 17-301 (W.D. Pa.) at ECF No. 25.
3. Present Civil Action No. 17-1467
Pro se Plaintiff, Roger Wilson, commenced this action on November 13, 2017, against the "Office of Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, complaining simply that "the U.S. Gov't enslaved [him]," and seeking $100 billion in damages. (ECF No. 1 at §§ IB, III and IV). On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a one-page Amended Complaint, this time against the "U.S. Gov't," alleging that between 2007 and 2011, he was "enslaved" with fabricated charges and evidence, and subjected to "physicological [sic] warfare," "brain washing," and "behavior modification." (ECF No. 4 at 1). He alleged further that the U.S. Government had him "beaten in prison" and that he was surrounded by federal agents during that time. On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed another one-page amendment in which he crossed out "2011" and wrote "Feb 2007," but added no new factual allegations or claims. (ECF No. 5 at 1). On December 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed yet another one-page "Amended Complaint" in which he essentially repeats the allegations of his first Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 6). On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed yet another Amended Complaint against the "US Gov't." (ECF No. 9 at 1). In this most recent version of his Complaint, Plaintiff reiterates that his claims are against the "US Gov't," id. at 2, and that he seeks $100 billion in damages. He alleges:
After being presented with a Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release, Wilson's bond was revoked and he was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal pending further disposition of that case. 2:06-cr-00316-MRH-4 (ECF No. 175) (Diamond, J). --------
The U.S. Gov't enslaved me from 2/07 to 1/08 down the Allegheny County Jail. Please check the docket 17-1467 for explanation, or I'll explain it at trial ... by fabricating charges [and] evidence [and] using the Willie Lynch theory, brain washing techniques and behavior modification.
(ECF No. 9 at 5.
As was the case with C.A. 17-301, Plaintiff contends that he was wrongfully incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail based on fabricated charges and evidence. Although in this action he complains about the time period between 2007 to 2008 - and in his prior action he complained about the time period between October 2012 and December 2013 - his new claims are otherwise essentially the same.
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, with Brief in Support, on January 12, 2018. (ECF Nos. 12, 13). Plaintiff has filed numerous responses (ECF Nos. 15, 21, 22, 26), and has filed an interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 34) of our denial (ECF No. 29) of his Motion to Strike (ECF No. 24). As of the date of this writing, the United States Court of Appeals has not ruled on that appeal, although its Office of the Clerk issued a letter advising him that it may lack appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
B. Legal Standard
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and as such, he is entitled to liberal construction of his submissions in federal court. This means that the Court must liberally construe the factual allegations of the complaint because pro se pleadings, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation omitted); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In addition, the court should "'apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether a pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.'" Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)). However, pro se litigants are not free to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pruden v. Long, Civ. A. No. 3:CV-06-2007, 2006 WL 3325439, *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2006).
A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556 (2007) (rejecting the traditional 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has expounded on this standard in light of its decision in Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (construing Twombly in a civil rights context), and the Supreme Court's decision in Iqbal:
After Iqbal, it is clear that conclusory or "bare-bones" allegations will no longer survive a motion to dismiss: "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. To prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must now set out "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible. This then "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 1948. The Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal emphasizes that a plaintiff must show that the allegations of his or her complaints are plausible. See Id. at 1949-50; see also Twombly, 505 U.S. at 555, & n. 3.Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). In making this determination, the court must accept as true all allegations of the complaint and all reasonable factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir. 1985). "To the extent that a complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim lacks even an arguable basis in law, Rule 12(b)(6) and §1915([e]) both counsel dismissal." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (footnote omitted).
C. Discussion
Defendant moves to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that his claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and for failure to plead any factual or legal basis for such claims.
It is clear that the claims brought herein are the same as those brought in the prior civil action, could have been brought therein, and United States's sovereign immunity has not been waived. Plaintiff was previously afforded an opportunity to rebut the fact that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a), under nearly identical set of facts involving the same parties and background, and did not do so. Plaintiff at one point merely crossed out "2011" and wrote "Feb 2007." It appears that Plaintiff - in a vexatious manner -- is merely seeking to revive claims that were litigated and dismissed in his prior federal action, and thus must be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to meet his obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief and the complaint does not state a plausible claim that would allow a reasonable inference that the defendant could be held liable for the alleged misconduct. A civil remedy is afforded to a victim of a criminal violation of the slavery statute via 18 U.S.C. 1595(a); however, even assuming that Plaintiff's allegations are true, and further, that the suit is timely, he has failed to allege any facts to support a claim. His theory of relief appears to be based on his claim that his pretrial detention was unconstitutional and that the defendants have committed the crime of slavery based on those proceedings. Given the procedural posture of this case and his related cases, this is a frivolous claim, and amendment would be futile.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF NO. 12) be granted and the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and the Local Rules for Magistrates Judges, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have ten (14) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011).
Dated this 9th day of April, 2018.
s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge cc: ROGER WILSON
516 Sinclair Street, Apt. 501
McKeesport, PA 15132
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
Jennifer R. Andrade
United States Attorney's Office
(via ECF electronic notification)