2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-14-2005

Sebrell v. DA Philadelphia Cty

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-3455

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Sebrell v. DA Philadelphia Cty" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 112.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/112
DPS-6 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-3455

________________

VERNELL L. SEBRELL,

 Appellant

v.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY LYNN ABRAHAM

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-01682)

District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam

_______________________________________

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

October 14, 2005

Before: ROTH, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed: December 14, 2005)

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Vernell Sebrell, commenced this action by filing a one-page pro se

complaint against the Philadelphia District Attorney. Among other things, Sebrell alleged

that the District Attorney failed to bring “corrupt cops” to justice and violated Sebrell’s

civil rights by failing to investigate complaints of “terroristic threats by police officers.”
The District Court granted Sebrell’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state

a claim. The District Court noted that even under a liberal reading of the pro se

complaint, Sebrell failed to allege an actionable constitutional violation or conduct that

falls outside the scope of the District Attorney’s immunity from suit. Sebrell timely filed

this appeal.

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have granted

Sebrell leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and will dismiss the appeal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Insofar as Sebrell filed this action in an effort to recover money damages (a fact

that is unclear from the complaint), the District Attorney is plainly immune from suit. 

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976); Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454 (3d Cir.

1992). To the extent that Sebrell sought an unspecified form of injunctive relief, or

merely sought “justice,” the district court likewise properly dismissed the complaint. 

Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dep’t, 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d Cir. 1996). Sebrell’s

allegations simply do not state an actionable claim upon which relief can be granted.

Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).