Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04385/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04385-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

CLD-209 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4385

___________

ABDUL IDEEN,

 Appellant

v.

AGENT STRAUB; AGENT CRAMER; JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary;

PAUL SHEAL, Superintendent; LT. RODNEY PAINTER; LISA HOLLIBAUGH;

PAUL K. SMEAL; RANDALL E. BRITTON;

CYNTHIA L. KECHISEN, School Principal

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 3:09-cv-00502)

District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 27, 2010

Before: BARRY, FISHER AND GREENAWAY, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 28, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Case: 09-4385 Document: 003110196780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2010
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and may 1

affirm the District Court’s decision on any basis supported by the record. See Tourscher

v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).

2

Abdul Ideen, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District

Court’s sua sponte order dismissing his second amended complaint. Because the appeal

does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

I.

In March 2009, Ideen filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He

subsequently amended his complaint twice. His second amended complaint named as

defendants two federal agents, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections (“DOC”), the superintendents of the State Correctional Institution at

Houtzdale (“SCI-Houtzdale”) and SCI-Smithfield, and two other prison officials from

SCI-Smithfield. Ideen appeared to raise claims of retaliation, racial profiling, and

interference with his free exercise of religion.

The District Court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended that

the court dismiss Ideen’s claims. On October 19, 2009, the District Court entered a sua

sponte order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissing Ideen’s

second amended complaint. Ideen now seeks review of the District Court’s order.1

Case: 09-4385 Document: 003110196780 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2010
3

II.

We first examine the claims against the two federal agents, the superintendent of

SCI-Smithfield, and the other two prison officials from that institution. The District

Court dismissed these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. 

We exercise plenary review over this aspect of the District Court’s judgment. See Allah

v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

To avoid dismissal, a complaint’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a

right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555 (2007). The allegations “must not be ‘so undeveloped that [the complaint] does not

provide a defendant the type of notice of claim which is contemplated by [Fed. R. Civ. P.

8].’” Umland v. Planco Fin. Servs., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Phillips

v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). In this case, portions of

Ideen’s second amended complaint, like his two earlier complaints, are difficult to

comprehend and border on being unintelligible. Even where his allegations are somewhat

clearer, he failed to sufficiently develop a factual basis for his claims, despite having had

three opportunities to do so. Accordingly, Ideen has not shown that the District Court

erred in dismissing the claims against the federal agents, the superintendent of SCISmithfield, and the other two prison officials from SCI-Smithfield for failure to state a

claim.

Case: 09-4385 Document: 003110196780 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2010
4

We now turn to Ideen’s claims against the DOC Secretary and the superintendent

of SCI-Houtzdale. The District Court dismissed these claims without prejudice,

concluding that they were more appropriately brought in the Western District of

Pennsylvania because they arose while Ideen was incarcerated in that district. Although

the court appeared to base its decision on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), that provision affords a

district court discretion to transfer a claim to another district, not dismiss the claim. See

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This oversight, however, did not prevent Ideen from refiling his

claims in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Moreover, he does not appear to

challenge this aspect of the District Court’s judgment in this appeal, nor do these claims

seem sufficiently clear or factually developed to state a claim. As such, we need not

disturb the District Court’s dismissal of these claims.

Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily

affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Ideen’s second amended complaint. See 3d

Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Ideen’s “Motion to Vacate Void Judgment 60(b)” is

denied.

Case: 09-4385 Document: 003110196780 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/28/2010