2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-22-2012

Pettaway v. SCI Albion

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1396

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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

"Pettaway v. SCI Albion" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 957.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/957
DLD-180

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-1396

____________

WAYNE PETTAWAY,

Appellant

v.

SCI ALBION; 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION CAMP HILL

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 1-11-cv-00158)

Magistrate Judge: Susan Paradise Baxter

__________________________________

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 10, 2012

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 22, 2012)

____________

OPINION

____________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Wayne Pettaway, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at 

Albion, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Albion”), initiated a civil rights action against SCI-Albion 
2

and the state Department of Corrections (“DOC”) in the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Pennsylvania by filing a motion for injunctive relief. His 

complaint was filed thereafter, and in it Pettaway alleged that the DOC improperly 

deducted court costs and fees from his prison account, pursuant to Act 84, over a period 

of years despite the fact that his “commitment order” provided that his fine and court 

costs were to be paid by Allegheny County. Pettaway sought money damages. 

Pettaway later filed a “supplemental” complaint, in which he provided certain 

details about his attempt to grieve the “theft” of his funds through prison channels. He 

provided a portion of the transcript from sentencing, wherein the trial judge stated: “And 

I will put costs on the county,” and another item indicating that those costs totaled 

$605.19 for two different convictions. Still another item, a “Memo” dated February 11, 

2011 from the DOC, indicated that that the collection of costs from Pettaway’s prison 

account had been terminated, and that any funds in the DOC’s possession that had not 

already been remitted to Allegheny County ($6.29) had been returned to Pettaway’s 

account. As to money already remitted, Pettaway was invited by the Superintendent to 

contact Allegheny County for the return of his funds.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

12(b)(6), and Pettaway submitted a written response in opposition. In an order entered on

February 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the 

complaint.1

 1 The parties consented to jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c)(1).

 The Magistrate Judge determined that Pettaway’s claim was barred by the 
3

Eleventh Amendment, which proscribes actions in the federal courts against a State and 

its agencies. The DOC, which administers SCI-Albion, is an agency of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and thus enjoys the same Eleventh Amendment 

immunity that the Commonwealth enjoys. Moreover, the DOC is not a “person” against 

whom a civil rights action may be brought. The Magistrate Judge further determined that 

any amendment by Pettaway to name specific persons responsible for the wrongful 

deductions would be futile, because the availability of the grievance procedure at SCIAlbion satisfied all the requirements of due process. Pettaway in fact used the postdeprivation remedy provided by the prison to obtain the return of at least some of his 

money.

Pettaway appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our Clerk 

granted him leave to appeal in forma pauperis

We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous. An appellant may prosecute his appeal 

without prepayment of the fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), but the 

and advised him that the appeal was 

subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary affirmance 

under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. He was invited to submit argument in 

writing.

in forma pauperis statute 

provides that the Court shall dismiss the appeal at any time if the Court determines that it 

is frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appeal is frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Pettaway’s appeal lacks an arguable basis in the law. A motion to dismiss should be 

granted if the plaintiff is unable to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 
4

plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The 

plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). We look for “enough facts 

to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary 

elements of” a claim for relief. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly

The Magistrate Judge properly dismissed Pettaway’s complaint. Suit against the 

Commonwealth’s Department of Corrections and SCI-Albion is barred by the Eleventh 

Amendment because Pennsylvania has not consented to suit in federal court. 

, 550 U.S. at 556). Where that is missing, the complaint 

must be dismissed.

See

Lombardo v. Pennsylvania, 540 F.3d 190, 194 (3d Cir. 2008) (immunity of States from 

suits in federal courts is fundamental aspect of state sovereignty). The Pennsylvania 

Department of Corrections is a state agency. See 71 Pa. Adm. Code § 61. Congress may 

abrogate a State’s sovereign immunity, and a State may consent to suit, Lombardo, 540 

F.3d at 195-96, but Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity from section 1983 

actions, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979), and Pennsylvania has withheld its 

consent to suit in federal court, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b). See Laskaris v. 

Thornburgh

Moreover, as a state agency and the prison it administers, the Department of 

Corrections and SCI-Albion are not “persons” and thus cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

, 661 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1981).

Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Any amendment 

to Pettaway’s complaint to name persons who could be sued under section 1983 would be 
5

futile, see Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

Procedural due process guarantees that the State will not deprive an individual of a 

protected interest in property without due process of law, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 

537 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986), but 

the United States Supreme Court has held that meaningful post-deprivation remedies 

provide sufficient due process for negligent deprivations of property, Parratt, 451 U.S. at 

530, and intentional deprivations of property, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533

(1984). The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections grievance procedure provides an 

adequate post-deprivation remedy, see, e.g., Tillman v. Lebanon County Correctional

Facility

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

, 221 F.3d 410, 422 (3d Cir. 2000), and the existence of this post-deprivation 

remedy forecloses his due process claim.