DLD

- 191 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 17

- 1444

___________ TROY CONNELLY ,

Appellant

v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

____________________________________ On Appeal fr om the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2:16

- cv
- 01762 ) District Judge: Honorable Cynthia R. Eddy

____________________________________ 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 April 13, 2017 Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 27, 2017 )

______________________ OPINIO N 

______________________ PER CURIAM

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Troy Con nelly appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm. On December 17, 2003, Connelly was sentenced in the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas to an aggregate sentence of 85 to 170 years of impris onment after being
convicted in four cases of three counts of rape, four counts of kidnapping, and one count

e ach of attempted sexual ass ault and robbery. Connelly was committed to the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and eventually housed at the State
Correctional Institution in Greene , Pennsylvania (“ SCI

- Greene ”) . On October 16, 2013, presumably in response to an inqui ry, a records supervisor at SCI

- Greene created an

“ Agency Attestation of Nonexistence of Records ” form indicating that she was not in possession of the sentencing orders from Connelly ’ s s tate court cases. Thereafter, Connelly filed a complaint in the Green e County Court of Common Pleas against the Secretary of the DOC , alleging that , because the trial court never completed a written sentencing order , he wa s being illegally held in violation of the Thirteen th Amendment and two Pennsylvania crimin al statutes. Connelly sought $13 million in damages plus an
additional millio n dollars for every y ear he h as been unlawfully held.
The Secretary removed the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania and filed
a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The parties consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Cynthia R. Eddy , who subsequently3

granted the Secretary ’ s motion to dismiss and de clined to permi t Connelly to file an
amended complaint. Connel ly appeals. We have jur isdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a district court ’ s decision to grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Kaymark v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 783 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2015). In order to survive dismissal, “a complaint mus t contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘ state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. ’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To decide a motion to dismiss,

“ a court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff ’ s claims are based on the document .” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc. , 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 ( 3d Cir. 1993). The prohibition against involuntary servitude in the T hirteenth A mendment is not implicated “where a prisoner is incarcerated pursuant to a presumptively valid judgment.” Tourscher v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting O masta v. Wainwright , 696 F.2d 1304, 1305 (11 th Cir. 1983)). Connelly does not contend that he was not convicted or sentenced by the Court of Common Pleas. Instead, he asserts that his confinement is illegal because there is no written sentencing order. Connelly a rgues that this omission invalidates the DOC ’ s authority to hold him in custody and that he thus
is entitled to damages. However , the exhibits attached to the motion to dismiss
dem onstrate that the trial judge signed written sentencing order s in each of Connelly ’ s4

cases
. 1 In addition, the Clerk of Court drafted and signed multiple commitment sheets.
Under these c ircumstances, we conclude that Connelly has not stated a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. Cf. Joseph v. Glunt , 96 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (stating that “the trial court correctly concluded that, even in the absence of a written sentencing order, the [ DOC ] had continuing authority to detain [Petitioner].”). Connelly also contended that he was falsely impriso ned in violation of 18 Pa.
Cons. Stat. § 2903, and unlawfully restrained in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2902. To the extent that Connelly is attempting to bring criminal charges or require the Government to initiate criminal proceedings against the Secretary , as a private citizen, he does not have standing to do so. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) ( “[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”)

. To the extent Con nelly alleged that the Secretary committed the intentional torts of false imprisonment and unlawful restraint, and sought relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Secretary enjoys immunity. With exceptions not relevant here, employees of Common wealth agencies acting within the scope of their duties enjoy immunity for their negligent acts , 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521,
and for intentional tort s
. Wilson v. Marrow , 917 A.2d 357, 364

- 65 (Pa. Commw. Ct.

1 T he sentencing order for count three of CP

- 51

- CR

- 0304071

- 2002 , which sentenced Connelly to ten to twenty years for kidnapping , is not signed. The sentencing order for the other count in CP

- 51

- CR

- 0304071

- 2002, as well as the sentencing orders in all of the other cases , were s igned by the judge . T he omission does not deprive the document of legal effect

. Cf. Evans v. Sec’ y P a. Dep’t of Corr. , 645 F.3d 650 , 654 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011) ( explaining that the omission of the sentencing judge’s signature on the commitment5

2007)

. Finally, a s the Secretary has the authori ty to hold Connelly in custody and the Secretary is immune from suit, dismissal without leave to amend was proper. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002)

. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court ’ s judgment. See 3d Cir

. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6

.

sheet did not depriv e the document of legal effect).