IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUSTIN M. CORLISS, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-0347

:

Plaintiff : (JUDGE JONES)

:

v. :

:

PETER J. O'BRIEN, et al., :

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

April 29, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff Justin Corliss (“Plaintiff” or “Corliss”), an inmate at the State Correctional

Institution, in Somerset, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The required filing fee has been paid. For the reasons outlined below, this

action will be dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act includes a new section that relates to screening

complaints in prisoner actions where the inmate has not applied to proceed in forma

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (added by § 805 of the Act). Section 1915A provides, in

pertinent part, as follows:

(a) Screening. -- The court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity.

Case 4:05-cv-00347-JEJ-DB Document 9 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 5
2

(b) Grounds for dismissal. -- On review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the

complaint --

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief.

Named as Defendants in the complaint are Monroe County Public Defenders Brian

Germano and Peter Quigley; Monroe County Judges, Peter O’Brien, Ronald Vican and

Carbon County Judge John P. Lavelle. 

Corliss complains that “as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants'

conspiratorial fraud and retaliatory conduct Plaintiff's access to the courts in Monroe

County has been irreparably and illegally obstructed, impeded and denied resulting in

legitimate causes of actions being denied, dismissed, impermissibly delayed, hindered

and obfuscated.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 10). As a result, he claims that he has “forever been denied

fair adjudication of the issues in his criminal case.” (See Rec. Doc. 1, ¶ 23). Specifically,

Plaintiff states that Defendants Germano and Quigley, “while being put on notice of their

transgressions, ineffectiveness and negligence, have refused and failed to alert any court

of the errors committed while they represented Plaintiff that entitled Plaintiff to relief as

a matter of law.” See id. at ¶ 26. With respect to Defendants O'Brien, Vican and

Lavelle, Plaintiff states that these Defendants “have penned 'opinions' and orders in

Case 4:05-cv-00347-JEJ-DB Document 9 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 5
3

Plaintiff's matters at law that came before them that have no basis in law or fact, and were

designed to obfuscate facts and to mislead judges in the appellate courts, and did, with

the objective of obstructing Plaintiff's access to the courts.” Id. at ¶ 27. For relief,

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 

DISCUSSION

In order to assert a cognizable claim under § 1983, Corliss must allege that some

person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who has caused the

deprivation acted under color of state or territorial law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). In setting forth a claim of conspiracy, Corliss cannot rely on broad or conclusory

allegations. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-36 (1980). On the contrary, he must

allege with particularity and present material facts which show that the purported

conspirators reached some understanding or agreement or plotted, planned and conspired

together to deprive plaintiff of a protected federal right. Chicarelli v. Plymouth Garden

Apartments, 551 F. Supp. 532, 539 (E.D. Pa. 1982).

With all due respect to Corliss, the Court finds incredible his notion that all the

judges and public defenders involved in his criminal matter engaged in a corrupt plot to

violate his civil rights. The Court therefore rejects Corliss’ factual contentions as clearly

baseless. See Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396, 1405 n. 16 (3d Cir. 1991) (conspiracy

claims which are based solely upon pro se plaintiff's subjective suspicions and

Case 4:05-cv-00347-JEJ-DB Document 9 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 5
4

unsupported speculation are properly dismissed). Additionally, the allegations in the

complaint are vague and conclusory and do not present a cognizable § 1983 conspiracy

claim.

Furthermore, it is a well-established principle of law 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). Consequently, any claims that Plaintiff

may be attempting to raise against the judges named as Defendants in this action would

be based on actions taken by those Defendants in the exercise of their official duties and

they are entitled to absolute immunity from monetary damages.

Furthermore, it is well-settled that public defenders and court appointed attorneys

do not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when performing traditional

functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Polk County v. Dodson,

454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Black v. Bayer, 672 F.2d 309, 311 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 459

U.S. 916 (1982). Accordingly, since the allegations against Attorneys Germano and

Quigley are premised on actions they took while serving as Plaintiff's defense counsel,

they are entitled to an entry of dismissal.

Case 4:05-cv-00347-JEJ-DB Document 9 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 5
1. In Heck, the United States Supreme Court announced 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." 512 U.S. at 477, 78.

Finally, it is clear that Corliss cannot obtain relief under § 1983 on the grounds

asserted in this case absent a successful challenge to the underlying conviction. Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).1 Although it appears that Corliss is claiming that the

deliberate mishandling of his criminal case deprived him of a fair and adequate trial, there

is no indication that he has successfully challenged his conviction or sentence in state

court.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

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

probable cause, and not taken in good faith.

s/ John E. Jones III 

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00347-JEJ-DB Document 9 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 5