UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GLUE WILKINS, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-06-14

:

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH H. :

KLEINFELTER, :

: (Judge McClure)

Defendant :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

January 26, 2006

Background

Glue Wilkins (“Plaintiff”), an inmate presently confined at the State

Correctional Institution, Somerset, Pennsylvania (SCI-Somerset), filed this pro se

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is accompanied by

an in forma pauperis application. For the reasons set forth below, Wilkins’ action

will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Named as sole Defendant is Judge Joseph H. Kleinfelter of the Dauphin

County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff identifies the Defendant

Case 4:06-cv-00014-JFM-JVW Document 8 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 6
2

as being the Judge who presided over his criminal trial. His complaint alleges that

after reading a medical report Judge Kleinfelter made a pre-trial determination “that

the MEDICAL REPORT did not support the criminal charges of ATTEMPTED

HOMICIDE.” Record document no. 1, ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that in light of that

determination, Judge Kleinfelter acted improperly by subsequently allowing the trial

to proceed.

Wilkins next contends that the Defendant erred by not declaring a mistrial

when the Commonwealth’s chief witness testified that the aforementioned medical

report was false. His third claim is that the Defendant failed to conduct a hearing

on his ability to pay fines and costs. In conclusion, Plaintiff alleges that Judge

Kleinfelter’s actions violated his due process rights and caused his ongoing

incarceration. As relief, Wilkins seeks undisclosed declaratory relief, punitive and

compensatory damages. He also asks for injunctive relief, specifically, that the

Defendant “facilitate a ‘LEGAL APPEAL To include, but not limited to an

evidentiary hearing on the MEDICAL REPORT and recuesing [sic] the defendant

from ALL matters.” Id. at ¶ V(1).

Discussion

28 U.S.C. § 1915 imposes obligations on prisoners who file civil actions in

Case 4:06-cv-00014-JFM-JVW Document 8 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 6
1

Indisputably meritless legal theories are those "in which it is either readily

apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the

defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit." Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192,

194 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir.

1990)). 

3

federal court and wish to proceed in forma pauperis. § 1915(e)(2) provides:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the

court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the

action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim

on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief.

Consequently, federal courts reviewing civil rights complaints filed by

persons wishing to proceed in forma pauperis may determine that process should

not be issued if the complaint is malicious, presents an indisputably meritless legal

theory, or is predicated on clearly baseless factual contentions. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d

Cir. 1989).1 In Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995), the

Third Circuit added that "the plain meaning of 'frivolous' authorizes the dismissal

of in forma pauperis claims that . . . are of little or no weight, value, or importance,

not worthy of serious consideration, or trivial." "The frivolousness determination

is a discretionary one," and trial courts "are in the best position" to determine when

Case 4:06-cv-00014-JFM-JVW Document 8 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 6
4

an indigent litigant's complaint is appropriate for summary dismissal. Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Inmates may not use civil rights actions to challenge the fact or duration of

their confinement or to seek earlier or speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475 (1975). The Plaintiff’s present allegations are unquestionably attacking

the legality of his Dauphin County criminal conviction. Pursuant to the Supreme

Court’s holding in Preiser, Wilkins may not employ § 1983 to challenge the legality

of his Pennsylvania state criminal conviction. 

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has similarly

recognized that civil rights claims seeking release from confinement sounded in

habeas corpus. See Georgevich v. Strauss, 772 F.2d 1078, 1086 (3d Cir. 1985). 

In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997), the United States Supreme

Court concluded that a civil rights claim for declaratory relief “based on allegations

... that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed, is not

cognizable” in a civil rights action. Id. at 646. Under the standards announced in

Georgevich and Edwards, Wilkins’ requests for injunctive and declaratory relief 

are not properly raised in a civil rights complaint. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for compensatory and punitive damages,

Case 4:06-cv-00014-JFM-JVW Document 8 Filed 01/26/06 Page 4 of 6
5

in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that a

constitutional cause of action for damages does not accrue “for allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," until the

Plaintiff proves that the "conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct

appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized

to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of

a writ of habeas corpus." Id. at 486-87. Thus, Wilkins’ request for compensatory

damages is premature under Heck because he cannot maintain a cause of action

for monetary damages until his underlying state criminal conviction is rendered

invalid. If Plaintiff is able to successfully challenge his Dauphin County

conviction, under Heck, he could then reassert his claim for damages in a properly

filed civil rights complaint. 

Finally, it is well settled that judges are absolutely immune from suit for

damages for conduct performed in the course of their official duties. Stump v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978); Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428, 431

(3d Cir. 1990) (recognizing that a court may dismiss an allegation against a judge

based on an exercise of judicial power). The doctrine of judicial immunity bars suit

against a judicial officer based on rulings made during the course of civil and

criminal proceedings. See Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440-41 (3d Cir. 

Case 4:06-cv-00014-JFM-JVW Document 8 Filed 01/26/06 Page 5 of 6
2 The dismissal of this action does not relieve Plaintiff of the obligation to pay

the full filing fee. Until the filing fee is paid in full, the Administrative Order previously

issued in this case is binding on the Warden of SCI-Somerset, as well as the

superintendent of any correctional facility to which Plaintiff is transferred. 

6

2000). Since the claims against Judge Kleinfelter are based on actions taken by the

Defendant during the exercise of his official judicial duties which were well within

his jurisdiction, he is entitled to absolute immunity from monetary damages. 

Since Plaintiff's complaint is "based on an indisputably meritless legal

theory" it will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous. Wilson, 878

F.2d at 774. Consequently,

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i).

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.2

3. Any appeal from this Order will be deemed frivolous, without

probable cause and not taken in good faith.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00014-JFM-JVW Document 8 Filed 01/26/06 Page 6 of 6