IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

NICHOLE HAWKINS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MARTIN DRAGOVICH, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 No. 4:23-CV-01869 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

JANUARY 5, 2024 

 Plaintiff Nichole Hawkins is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional 

Institution in Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania. Hawkins filed the instant pro se

Section 19831

 action against numerous Pennsylvania officials. Hawkins’ 

complaint, however, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, so the 

Court will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) but will grant her leave 

to amend. 

I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 

Courts are statutorily obligated to review, “as soon as practicable,” pro se

prisoner complaints targeting governmental entities, officers, or employees.2

 One 

1

 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 creates a private cause of action to redress constitutional 

wrongs committed by state officials. The statute is not a source of substantive rights; it serves 

as a mechanism for vindicating rights otherwise protected by federal law. See Gonzaga Univ. 

v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002). 

2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Case 4:23-cv-01869-MWB-MP Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 7
2 

basis for dismissal at the screening stage is if the complaint “fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted[.]”3

 This language closely tracks Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Accordingly, courts apply the same standard to 

screening a pro se prisoner complaint for sufficiency under Section 1915A(b)(1) as 

they utilize when resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).4

 

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts should not inquire 

“whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to 

offer evidence to support the claims.”5

 The court must accept as true the factual 

allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff.6

 In addition to the facts alleged on the face of 

the complaint, the court may also consider “exhibits attached to the complaint, 

matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents” attached to 

a defendant’s motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based upon these 

documents.7

3

 Id. § 1915A(b)(1). 

4

 See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 109-10 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2002); O’Brien 

v. U.S. Fed. Gov’t, 763 F. App’x 157, 159 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (nonprecedential); 

cf. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). 

5

 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 66 (3d Cir. 

1996). 

6

 Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). 

7

 Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. 

v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). 

Case 4:23-cv-01869-MWB-MP Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 7
3 

When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged, the court must conduct a 

three-step inquiry.8

 At step one, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements [the] 

plaintiff must plead to state a claim.”9

 Second, the court should distinguish wellpleaded factual allegations—which must be taken as true—from mere legal 

conclusions, which “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and may be 

disregarded.10 Finally, the court must review the presumed-truthful allegations 

“and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”11 

Deciding plausibility is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to 

draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”12

 Because Hawkins proceeds pro se, her pleadings are to be liberally 

construed and her complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]”13 This is 

particularly true when the pro se litigant, like Hawkins, is incarcerated.14

II. DISCUSSION 

Hawkins’ complaint is long on named Defendants but short on substance. 

She sues 15 state officials (six identified in her three-page “complaint”15 and 

8 Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted) (footnote omitted). 

9

 Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009) (alterations in original)). 

10 Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). 

11 Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). 

12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. 

13 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). 

14 Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). 

15 See Doc. 1 at 2-3. 

Case 4:23-cv-01869-MWB-MP Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 7
4 

another nine identified in her attachments16), but it is anyone’s guess as to the basis 

of her lawsuit. Hawkins states that she “brings before the court” a claim of 

“supervisory acquience [sic] on behalf of each named defendant,”17 and “also 

brings forth” claims for “defamation of character, psychological intention [sic] 

abuse, intentional infliction [of] emotional distress[, and] mail tampering.”18 There 

are, however, no factual allegations in the complaint that discuss or support any of 

these federal or state-law claims. 

A. Insufficiency of Hawkins’ Complaint 

The Court need not expend significant time and resources on screening 

Hawkins’ complaint. Her pleading contains only legal conclusions, which are not 

entitled to the assumption of truth and may be disregarded.19 At best, Hawkins’ 

filing can be construed as asserting that 15 identified Defendants “acquiesced” in 

some unknown constitutional violation and also committed several state-law torts. 

Such a pleading, which lacks any factual allegations whatsoever, is clearly 

deficient and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

16 See Docs. 1-2 through 1-12. 

17 Doc. 1 at 1. 

18 Id.

19 Connelly, 809 F.3d at 787. 

Case 4:23-cv-01869-MWB-MP Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 7
5 

Hawkins did include multiple attachments with her complaint.20 Some of 

those attachments contain prison grievances,21 which may provide some insight 

into what claim or claims Hawkins is attempting to assert. But the Court declines 

to piece together potential legal claims from Hawkins’ attachments. Instead, 

Hawkins must file a complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and sets forth, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that [she] is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for the relief sought.”22 

Additionally, the Court admonishes Hawkins that, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), she may not join multiple defendants in a single 

complaint without a proper basis for joinder. In other words, unless Hawkins’ 

unspecified claims are part of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences,” or there is a “question of law or fact common to all 

defendants,”23 Hawkins cannot permissively join 15 defendants together in one 

civil action. And even a cursory review of Hawkins’ attachments reveals that she 

20 See generally Docs. 1-2 through 1-14. 

21 See Doc. 1-3 at 2; Doc. 1-7 at 2-5; Doc. 1-8 at 2-3; Doc. 1-9 at 2-4; Doc 1-11 at 2-3; Doc. 1-

12 at 2. 

22 FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). 

23 FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2). 

Case 4:23-cv-01869-MWB-MP Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 7
6 

is suing different defendants for different alleged legal violations that have little or 

no relation to each other.24 This Hawkins cannot do.25

B. Leave to Amend 

 Generally, “in forma pauperis plaintiffs who file complaints subject to 

dismissal under [the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995] should receive leave to 

amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.”26 Leave to amend will 

be granted in the event that Hawkins can plead facts that would plausibly state a 

Section 1983 claim against an appropriate defendant. Hawkins is admonished that 

she must adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when filing her amended 

complaint, and failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice. 

She is further admonished that she may not include unrelated claims against 

different defendants in a single complaint, as this violates Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 20(a)(2). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss Hawkins’ complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

24 See, e.g., Doc. 1-3 at 2; Doc. 1-7 at 2-5; Doc. 1-8 at 2-3; Doc. 1-9 at 2-4; Doc 1-11 at 2-3; Doc. 

1-12 at 2. 

25 See id.; George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[u]nrelated claims 

against different defendants belong in different suits” not only to prevent confusion but also to 

ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees under the PLRA); Redding v. Bilinski, No. 

3:15-cv-1047, 2015 WL 3710842, at *1-2 (M.D. Pa. June 12, 2015) (same). 

26 Grayson, 293 F.3d at 114. 

Case 4:23-cv-01869-MWB-MP Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 7
7 

be granted. Hawkins, if she is able, may file an amended complaint in accordance 

with this Memorandum. An appropriate Order follows. 

 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

 Matthew W. Brann 

 Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:23-cv-01869-MWB-MP Document 10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 7