1. On January 5, 2006, Plaintiff informed the Court that he was to be released

“soon” and would then be residing in Edwardsville, Pennsylvania. See Record

document no. 3.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CORNELIUS BULLOCK, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-06-03

:

LUZERNE COUNTY CHILDREN AND : (Judge McClure) 

YOUTH SERVICES ET AL., :

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

January 17, 2006

Background

Cornelius Bullock (“Plaintiff”), an inmate presently confined in the Luzerne

County Correctional Facility, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, initiated this pro se civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The required filing fee has been paid in

full. For the reasons set forth below, Bullock’s complaint will be dismissed, without

prejudice, as legally frivolous pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915A.

Named as Defendants are Luzerne County Children and Youth Services

(“CYS”) and three of its employees, Supervisor Donna Vrhel and Caseworkers JoCase 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 9
2. Plaintiff asserts that he is presently attempting to withdraw a guilty plea which he

entered to charges of sexually assaulting two minor female children. 

2

Ann Costanzo and Yuri Lynn Gilby-Safka. Plaintiff is also proceeding against two

employees of the Wilkes-Barre Housing Authority, Manager Clementine and Assistant

Manger Dorese; Bernadette Bayneck and Karl Kandetzki (who are apparently former

neighbors); as well as two newspapers, the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader and the

Citizens Voice. 

It is initially noted that the complaint is set forth in a disjointed and at times

illegible manner. Bullock states that in June, 2004, he was accused of fondling a minor

female. A second minor female subsequently made a similar accusation against the

Plaintiff. Bullock contends that neighbors including Defendant Bayneck advised the

alleged minor victims to contact CYS. 

On August 16, 2004, the Wilkes-Barre Police accompanied by Defendants

Costanzo and Gilby-Safka allegedly entered Plaintiff’s residence without his consent. 

It appears that Defendants Clementine and Dorese either participated or acquiesced in

the resulting search of Bullock’s residence. Plaintiff alleges that the accusations

against him are false and that he has been subjected to unlawful imprisonment. 2 His

complaint contends that the testimony of the victims was coerced and manipulated by

a police detective and Defendant Gilby-Safka. See Record document no. 1, ¶ IV(3). 

He further indicates that his criminal prosecution is discriminatory as it was initiated

because of his mixed marriage.

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 9
3

The complaint adds that as a result of his arrest, Plaintiff’s children were

placed in foster care by CYS and he was evicted from his residence, by the WilkesBarre Housing Authority. Bullock’s remaining claim is that the Wilkes-Barre Times

Leader and Citizens’ Voice published defamatory articles regarding his alleged

involvement in the sexual assaults. As relief, Bullock seeks monetary restitution,

punitive damages, expungement of the child abuse allegations, and the release of his

children from foster care.

Discussion 

As previously noted, Plaintiff has paid the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §

1915A provides in pertinent part:

(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.

(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.

A district court 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

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 9
3. 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)). 

4

(1989); Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).3 The Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit has 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." Deutsch v. United States,

67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995). “The frivolousness determination is a

discretionary one," and trial courts “are in the best position" to determine when an

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

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

Personal Involvement

A plaintiff, in order to state a viable civil rights claim under § 1983, 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).

Defendants Bayneck and Kandetzki are identified as being Plaintiff’s former

neighbors. Plaintiff is presumably attempting to establish liability against those

individuals on the grounds that they advised the alleged minor victims to contact CYS. 

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 9
5

It is apparent that neither of Bullock’s prior neighbors were acting under color of state

law and thus, they are not properly named Defendants for purposes of § 1983.

It is equally clear that neither the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader nor the Citizens’ Voice

newspapers are state actors and are also not properly named Defendants.

Defamation

Plaintiff contends that the two newspapers, the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader

and the Citizens’ Voice printed slanderous/defamatory articles regarding his sexual

assault prosecution. “[D]efamation is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if it

occurs in the course of or is accompanied by a change or extinguishment of a right or

status guaranteed by state law or the Constitution.” Clark v. Township of Falls, 890 F.

2d 611, 619 (3d Cir. 1989). Accord Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233-35 (1991). 

Bullock has not alleged that a significant interest other than damage to his

reputation occurred as a result of the purported defamation. It is noted that the

purported defamation did not cause his arrest or incarceration. Thus, there are no

facts to support his apparent claim that the alleged defamatory articles caused him any

actual constitutionally recognized injury. Because the Plaintiff does not have a

constitutionally protected interest in his reputation, his claims of slander/defamation

may not proceed. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701-02 (1976)(liberty interest

requires more than mere injury to reputation).

Heck

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 5 of 9
6

As previously noted, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages on the basis that his

ongoing sexual assault prosecution is meritless. 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. 

Plaintiff’s present allegations if proven, could render his ongoing

confinement/state criminal prosecution invalid. There is no indication that the legality

of Plaintiff’s present prosecution/incarceration has been successfully challenged in

either state court or via a federal habeas corpus petition. Thus, Bullock's complaint to

the extent that it seeks damages is premature under Heck, until the purportedly,

unconstitutional confinement challenged herein is rendered invalid.

Abstention

As noted earlier, part of the relief sought by the Plaintiff is expungement of

the pending sexual assault/child abuse allegations. Bullock indicate that he is the

subject of a criminal prosecution on those charges in Luzerne County. It is unclear

from the present complaint whether his criminal proceedings have concluded. Plaintiff

indicates only that he entered a guilty plea in April, 2005 which he subsequently wanted

to withdraw. 

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 6 of 9
4. Exceptions to Younger abstention may be made because of "a showing of bad

faith prosecution, harassment, or a patently unconstitutional rule that will cause

irreparable injury to the plaintiff.” Id.

7

In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1981), the United States Supreme Court

“held that principles of federalism and comity require district courts to abstain from

enjoining pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances." 

Port Auth. Police Benevolent Assoc., Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J. Police

Dep't., 973 F.2d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 1992). Under Younger, the test for federal court

abstention is whether "(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in

nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state

proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims." Id.

4

 Indeed, “[i]n no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its

hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of

pending criminal proceedings.” Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227,

1234 (3d Cir. 1992). This civil rights action does not raise the type of extraordinary

circumstances contemplated under Younger, thus, intervention by this Court into any

ongoing state criminal prosecution of the Plaintiff is not warranted at this juncture.

To the extent that there are ongoing state criminal proceedings, abstention is required

in this case out of deference to the integrity of the state judicial process.

Habeas Corpus

As noted above, Bullock indicates that he was subjected to an

unconstitutional state prosecution. It is well-settled that inmates may not use civil

rights actions to challenge the fact or duration of their confinement or to seek earlier or

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 7 of 9
8

speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1975). More recently, the

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

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 §

1983 civil rights action. Id. at 646. 

Pursuant to Preiser and Edwards, Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief,

which would require a finding that his criminal conviction should be overturned, are

not properly raised in a civil rights complaint.

Conclusion

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. The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

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

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.

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 8 of 9
9

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00003-JFM-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/17/06 Page 9 of 9