1

According to the docket entries in this case, it appears that Defendant City of Erie was never served with any

documents in this case and no appearance was ever entered by an attorney on his behalf. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RANDOLPH S. TANGLE, )

Plaintiff, )

) C.A. No. 05-114 Erie

vs. ) District Judge Cohill 

) Magistrate Judge Baxter 

CITY OF ERIE, et al., )

Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that:

1) The motion to dismiss by Defendants Winkler and Fetzner [Document # 12] be

granted.; and

2) The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants John Doe and Muscarella [Document 

# 16] be granted.

It is further recommended that, pursuant to the authority granted to courts in the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted as against Defendant City of Erie.1

II. REPORT

A. Relevant Procedural and Factual History

On April 29, 2005, Plaintiff Randolph S. Tangle, an inmate incarcerated at the Erie C.C.

Center in Erie, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Named as Defendants are: City of Erie (“Erie”); John Doe, Judge’s Law Clerk (“John Doe”);

Patrick L. Fetzner, Clerk of Court (“Fetzner”); Jim Muscarella, Chief Court Reporter

(”Muscarella”); and Sharon Winkler, Clerk of Court Office (“Winkler”).

Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the

United States Constitution were violated by Defendants Winkler, Muscarella, and Fetzner 

Case 1:05-cv-00114-MBC-SPB Document 24 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 6
2

because they allegedly “withheld and refused to provide [Plaintiff] with transcripts or

documents of his criminal trial or charges for the past (11) eleven years,” thus hindering his

ability to seek a timely appeal of his criminal conviction. (Complaint at p. 5, ¶ 2). Plaintiff

alleges further that Defendant John Doe conspired with Defendants Winkler, Fetzner, and

Muscarella to deny him access to the courts. (Complaint at p. 7, ¶ 3). As relief for his claims,

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

Defendants Winkler, Fetzner, John Doe, and Muscarella have filed motions to dismiss

[Document ## 12, 16] asserting that Plaintiff’s claims against them should be dismissed because

they are barred by the doctrines of judicial immunity, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, as

well as the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not filed a response to either of 

Defendants’ motions despite this Court’s Order allowing him time to do so [Document No. 23]. 

This matter is now ripe for consideration. 

C. Standards of Review

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be

viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all the well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint must be accepted as true. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Langford v.

City of Atlantic City, 235 F.3d 845, 847 (3d Cir. 2000). The motion cannot be granted unless

the court is satisfied “that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). See also

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002). 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a pleading must set forth a

claim for relief which contains a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief. The issue is not whether the plaintiff will prevail at the end but whether he

should be entitled to offer evidence in support of his claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319

(1989); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 419 U.S. 232 (1974). However, a court need not credit a

complaint's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions" when deciding a motion to dismiss. Morse

v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) citing In re Burlington Coat

Case 1:05-cv-00114-MBC-SPB Document 24 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 6
3

Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir.1997). Therefore, in order to

survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint must only set forth

sufficient information to suggest that there is some recognized legal theory upon which relief

can be granted. See Swierkiewicz. 

Pro se pleadings, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim

if it appears “<beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief.’” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521(1972) quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state

a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper

legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant’s

unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United

States ex rel. Montgomery v. Bierley, 141 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969)(petition prepared by a

prisoner may be inartfully drawn and should be read “with a measure of tolerance”); Smith v.

U.S. District Court, 956 F.2d 295 (D.C.Cir. 1992); Freeman v. Department of Corrections, 949

F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1991). Under our liberal pleading rules, a district court should construe all

allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d

Cir.1997). See, e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)(discussing Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(6) standard); Markowitz v. Northeast Land Company, 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir.

1990)(same).

D. Discussion

1. Judicial Immunity

Defendants Winkler, Fetzner, John Doe, and Muscarella have asserted, among other

things, that they are immune from Plaintiff’s lawsuit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. 

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants is that they deprived him of his

constitutional rights by failing to provide him with copies of trial transcripts and other

documents related to his criminal trial. However, quasi-judicial and absolute immunity are

Case 1:05-cv-00114-MBC-SPB Document 24 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 6
2

To the extent Plaintiff makes reference to declaratory relief, such a claim is also barred by judicial immunity, as this

is “no more than an implicit predicate to [his] request for damages.” Hansen v. Ahlgrimm, 520 F.2d 768, 770 (7th

4

available to those individuals, such as the Defendants, who perform functions closely associated

with the judicial process. Henig v. Odorioso, 385 F.2d 491, 494 (3d Cir. 1967, cert. denied, 390

U.S. 1016 (1968)(holding that judiciary employees executing judicial orders are immune from

suits for money damages); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1969)(holding that court

reporter and court clerk who refused to give plaintiff transcript of record were acting in

discharge of their official duties and were, thus, protected by judicial immunity); Stewart v.

Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969)(holding that court reporter’s and court clerk’s refusal to

furnish plaintiff with a portion of state criminal trial transcript were acts performed in their

capacities as quasi-judicial officers, which clothed them with judicial immunity); Clay v. Yates,

809 F.Supp. 417, 423 (E.D.Va. 1992), affirmed, 36 F.3d 1091 (assistant deputy clerk of court

was entitled to derivative absolute judicial immunity for performing or refusing to perform

ministerial act of responding to requests for information sought by inmate).

Furthermore, absolute immunity extends to Defendants to the extent they are being sued

in their individual capacities, as well. Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 66 (2nd Cir.

1997)(inmate’s section 1983 claims against court clerks for refusing inmate’s request for records

on direct appeal and for alleged delay in scheduling appeal were related to judicial functions

and, thus, clerks were entitled to absolute judicial immunity from claims). Moreover, whether

an act is judicial in character and, thus, subject to absolute immunity, does not depend on

whether it is discretionary; rather, immunity applies to all acts of auxiliary court personnel that

are basic and integral parts of the judicial process. Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1456, 1461

(D.C.Cir. 1993). In this case, it is beyond dispute that the act of providing Plaintiff with copies

of trial transcripts and other documents associated with Plaintiff’s criminal trial is a basic and

integral part of the judicial process. Thus, Defendants Winkler, Fetzner, John Doe, and

Muscarella, are entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff’s claims against them and such

claims should be dismissed.2

Case 1:05-cv-00114-MBC-SPB Document 24 Filed 01/13/06 Page 4 of 6
Cir. 1975); Isely v. Bucks County, 549 F.Supp. 160, 166 (E.D.Pa. 1982).

3

Title 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides: “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--(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.”

5

2. The Prison Litigation Reform Act

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that: 

(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.

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, not only is a court permitted to sua sponte

dismiss a complaint which fails to state a claim, but it is required to do so. Nieves v. Dragovich,

1997 WL 698490, at *8 (E.D. Pa. 1997)(“Under provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act

codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), the district courts are

required, either on the motion of a party or sua sponte, to dismiss any claims made by an inmate

that are frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”).

The PLRA also amended the statutory provisions with respect to actions brought by

prisoners who are proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)3. Under this

provision as well, not only is a court permitted to sua sponte dismiss a complaint which fails to

state a claim, but it is required to do so by mandatory language. See, e.g., Keener v.

Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 128 F.3d 143, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 1997) (describing 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as “the PLRA provision mandating sua sponte dismissal of in forma

pauperis actions that are frivolous or fail to state a claim.”). In performing a court’s mandated

function of sua sponte reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and under § 1915A to

determine if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a federal district court

applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). See, e.g., Tucker v. Angelone, 954 F. Supp. 134, 135 (E.D. Va. 1977) (“Under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) the courts are directed to dismiss any

Case 1:05-cv-00114-MBC-SPB Document 24 Filed 01/13/06 Page 5 of 6
6

claims made by inmates that ‘fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted’”.).

Although Defendant Erie is the lead Defendant named in this case, Plaintiff has failed to

make any allegations, whatsoever, against Erie. In fact, Defendant Erie is not mentioned

anywhere in the complaint other than in the caption. Thus, this lawsuit should be dismissed as

against Defendant Erie for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully recommends that:

1) The motion to dismiss by Defendants Winkler and Fetzner [Document # 12] be

granted.; and

2) The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants John Doe and Muscarella [Document 

# 16] be granted.

It is further recommended that, pursuant to the authority granted to courts in the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted as against Defendant City of Erie.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4 B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to timely file objections may constitute a

waiver of any appellate rights. 

 S/Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated: January 13, 2006

cc: The Honorable Maurice B. Cohill

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00114-MBC-SPB Document 24 Filed 01/13/06 Page 6 of 6