UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GABRIEL L. MEIGS, :

 :

 Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-05-1164

 :

 vs. : (Complaint filed 6/10/05)

 :

LARRY HURLEY AND JAMES SHAW, : (Judge Muir)

 :

 Defendants :

 :

ORDER June 16, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On June 10, 2005, Gabriel L. Meigs, an inmate at the

Bradford County Correctional Facility, Troy, Pennsylvania, filed

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Meigs’s complaint

consists of the standard form to be used by a prisoner filing a

civil rights complaint. Meigs names as defendants Larry Hurley,

Chief of Police of Athens Township, Pennsylvania, and James

Shaw, a police officer for Athens Township.

Along with the complaint, Meigs filed an application

to proceed in forma pauperis and an authorization form to have

funds deducted from his prison trust fund account. The court

then issued an Administrative Order directing the warden of the

institution where Meigs is incarcerated to commence deducting

the full filing fee from Meigs’s prison trust fund account.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Act"),

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996) imposed new

obligations on prisoners who file suits in federal court and

wish to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, e.g.,

the full filing fee ultimately must be paid (at least in a nonCase 4:05-cv-01164-MM Document 7 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 6
2

habeas suit). Also, a new section was added which relates to

screening complaints in prisoner actions. Section 1915(e)(2),

which was created by § 804(a)(5) of the Act, 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.

We will now review Meigs's complaint pursuant to the screening

provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

In section IV entitled “Statement of Claim” of the

standard complaint form Meigs states in toto, including

grammatical errors, as follows:

1. On or about November 26th, 2003, Sergeant James Shaw

allegedly coerced an individual named Diane Blake 

Carrier into making a false statement against me in 

regards to a criminal case, No.: 04CR000009

2. In April of 2005, Diane Blake Carrier wrote a

statement against Sergeant James Shaw to the affect 

that he had coerced her into making a false statement

against me. Larry Hurley is the chief of police and 

supervises Sergeant James Shaw.

3. I filed a complaint, concerning this issue, with

the Bradford County District Attorneys office; the

Bradford County Commissioners office; District Justice

Michael Shaw; President Judge Jeffrey Smith; the

federal Bureau of Investigation in Williamsport; the 

Bradford County Sheriff’s Department; and the state

police, to no avail I also filed a complaint with the

Athens Township Police Department, to no avail.

Doc. 1, Complaint, page 2. 

In section V entitled “Relief” of the complaint, Meigs

states as follows:

 I want the court to dismiss my criminal charges, and 

Case 4:05-cv-01164-MM Document 7 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 6
1This dismissal is without prejudice to Meigs’s right to file

a petition for writ of habeas corpus. However, before Meigs can

seek habeas relief in this court, he must fully exhaust his state

court remedies.

3

 order the defendants to do whatever the court deems just

 and proper.

Id. at page 3. 

It is well-settled that prisoners cannot use 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 to challenge the fact or duration of their confinement or

to seek immediate or speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475 (1973). To the extent that Meigs’s § 1983

complaint is challenging the duration of his incarceration and

seeking immediate or early release from prison, that portion of

the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim on

which relief may be granted.1

 

A plaintiff, in order to state a viable § 1983 claim,

must plead two essential elements: (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of

state law, and (2) that said conduct deprived the plaintiff of a

right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or

laws of the United States. Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47

F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995); Shaw by Strain v. Strackhouse, 920

F.2d 1135, 1141-42 (3d Cir. 1990). 

Claims brought under § 1983 cannot be premised on a

theory of respondeat superior. Capone v. Marinelli, 868 F.2d

102, 106 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison

Officials, 546 F.2d 1017, 1082 (3d Cir. 1976)); Rode v.

Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). In Capone,

Case 4:05-cv-01164-MM Document 7 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 6
4

the court noted "that supervisory personnel are only liable for

the § 1983 violations of their subordinates if they knew of,

participated in or acquiesced in such conduct." 868 F.2d at 106

n.7. 

An application of the above standards to Meigs’s

complaint clearly shows that he has failed to set forth a

cognizable claim against Larry Hurley, Chief of Police of Athens

Township. A careful review of the complaint shows that with

regard to Hurley, the plaintiff is attempting to impose

liability on the basis of respondeat superior. Thus, dismissal

of the claim against defendant Hurley is appropriate.

The United States Supreme Court has held that "in

order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by acts

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence

invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove 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." Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2369, 2372 (1994). 

To the extent that Meigs is seeking monetary damages

from Shaw, it appears that the claim is barred by Heck. Meigs

appears to be alleging that Shaw coerced a witness to testify

against him at a criminal trial. It appears that Meigs was

convicted based on that testimony. He now contends that the

witness, Diane Blake Carrier, has come forward and claims that

Case 4:05-cv-01164-MM Document 7 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 6
5

she was coerced by Shaw to testify falsely at Meigs’s trial. 

Such a claim draws into question Meigs’s conviction.

Consequently, he can not, under Heck, maintain a cause of action

for damages based on his contention that his imprisonment or

conviction is unlawful, until the basis for that imprisonment or

conviction, whatever that may be, is rendered invalid. 

It is possible that our interpretation of Meigs’s

complaint as it relates to defendant Shaw is erroneous. 

Consequently, we will permit Meigs’s to file an amended

complaint. The amended complaint must be complete in all

respects. It must be a new pleading which stands by itself

without reference to the complaint already filed. Such amended

complaint should set forth his claims in short, concise and

plain statements. It should specify which actions are alleged

as to which defendants. The complaint should not contain legal

argument or reference to court cases. If Meigs fails to file an

amended complaint adhering to the standards set forth above

within the time prescribed, this case will be closed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Meigs’s complaint is dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

2. Within 30 days from the date hereof Meigs may file

an amended complaint.

3. If Meigs fails to file an amended complaint 

within 30 days of the date hereof, the Clerk of Court will be

directed to close this case.

Case 4:05-cv-01164-MM Document 7 Filed 06/16/05 Page 5 of 6
6

4. Any appeal from this order will be deemed

frivolous, without probable cause and not taken in good faith.

 s/Malcolm Muir

 

MUIR

United States District Judge

MM:gs

Case 4:05-cv-01164-MM Document 7 Filed 06/16/05 Page 6 of 6