2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-26-2010 

# Ar chie T indel l v . C ommon we alth of P A

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-2319

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Ar chie T inde l l v

. C ommon w e alth of P

A" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 388. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/388

### DLD-015 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2319

___________ ARCHIE TINDELL, Appellant

v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SECRETARY JEFF REY A. BEARD; SCI PINE GROVE; FACILITY MANAGER BARRY J. JOHNSON; NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL

________________ ____________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Distri ct of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 10-0689) District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley

________________ ____________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Th ird Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 21, 2010 Before: BARRY, FI SHER and STAPLETON , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 26, 2010)

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Archie Tindell, an inmate at Northumberland County Prison,2 

### appeals the District Court’s dismissal of hi s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291 and exercise plenar y review over the District Court’s order. See Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). For the reasons detailed below, we will summarily affi rm the District Court’s judgment. In his complaint, Tindell alleged th at Jeffrey Beard, the secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections; Ba rry Johnson, the facility manager of SCIPine Grove; Ray Johnson, the warden of No rthumberland County Prison; and Anthony Rosini, the district attorney of Northumberland County, conspired to charge him with assaulting another inmate and wrongly used that charge to keep him incarcerated beyond the expiration of his maximum term of imprisonment. 1 

### According to Tindell, in 2008, he was charged by criminal compla int with assault. Upon the subsequent completion of his initial sentence (which he was serving at Pine Grove), rather than being released, he was transferred to Northumberland — where his assault charge was (and is) pending. Tindell claimed that the criminal complaint, transfe r, and pretrial detentio n were procedurally and substantively invalid. He asserted cl aims of false impris onment and malicious prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as various state law claims, and sought both release from Northumberland and money damage s. He also filed a motion to proceed in

1 

### Although Tindell listed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections (DOC) in the caption of his comp laint, the parties enumerated above are the only ones that Tindell demanded relief fro m and listed in the “parties” section of the complaint. In any event, under the Eleventh Amendment, states and state agencies are immune from suit in federal court. See, e.g. , Lavia v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. , 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000). Accordingly, an y claim against the DOC is barred by the3 

### forma pauperis

. The District Court granted Tindell’s in forma pauperis motion, but then dismissed the complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e ). The Court held that Tindell’s claims against Rosini failed because Rosini wa s entitled to absolute i mmunity for his role in prosecuting Tindell. The Court conclude d that Tindell had failed to state a claim against Barry Johnson, Ray Johnson, and Bear d for two reasons. First, the Court held that Tindell’s complaint as to those appe llees did not allege the requisite personal involvement in the alleged misconduct, but instead improperly sought to impose liability solely due to their supervisor y roles in the prison system. Second, the Court held that Tindell failed to plead his c onspiracy claim with sufficient particularity. The Court also dismissed Tindell’s claim seek ing immediate release, concluding that that remedy was available only through habeas corpus proceedings and not under § 1983. Finally, the Court concluded that any amen dment would be futile and t hus dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. We conclude that the District Court wa s correct to dismiss Tindell’s complaint. To the extent, if any, that Tindell seek s release from detenti on, he advances no cognizable § 1983 claim but is instead asser ting a claim that prop erly lies within the realm of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 499 n.14 (1973); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson , 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Tindell’s claims against Rosini also fail. It is well establis hed that prosecutors

1 Eleventh Amendment.4 

### sued under § 1983 enjoy absolu te immunity for their conduct in “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). This immunity extends to any acts the prosecuto r undertakes “as the state’s ‘advocate,’” Yarris v. County of Delaware , 465 F.3d 129, 136 (3d Cir. 20 06), and is not defeated by allegations that the prosecutor acted in bad faith, see Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. , 108 F.3d 486, 502 (3d Cir. 1997), or “commit[te d] perjury or falsifie[d] evidence,” Davis v. Grusemeyer , 996 F.2d 617, 630 n.27 (3d Cir. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust , 155 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1998). Therefore, Rosini is entitled to absolute immunity for his deci sion to file a crimin al complaint against Tindell. See Imbler , 424 U.S. at 421. Rosini is si milarly immune from liability for his role (after the criminal comp laint was filed against Tindell) in transferring Tindell to Northumberland in anticipation of his state trial. See Pinaud v. County of Suffolk , 52 F.3d 1139, 1150 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that prosecutor is entitled to immunity for his involvement in the transfer of a prisoner in federal custody to state custody for purposes of attending trial in state court). Therefore, Tindell has failed to state a cognizable claim against Rosini. Further, although Tindell has named Je ffrey Beard, Barry Johnson, and Roy Johnson as defendants, he has failed to allege that those parties were personally involved in the alleged misconduct. Instead, he seeks to hold them liable so lely on the basis of their supervisory positions. See Compl. at 2 (claiming that Beard “is legally responsible for the overall operations of all corre ctional facilities” in Pennsylvania); id. (claiming that5 

### Barry Johnson “is legally responsible for the overall operation[,] care, custody and control of all prisoners housed” at Pine Grove); id. (claiming that Roy Johnson “is legally responsible for the overall operation” of Nort humberland). However, “[a] defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involv ement in the alleged wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior .” Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Thus, Tindell’ s theory as to thes e defendants is not cognizable under § 1983. Finally, we discern no error in the Distri ct Court’s determination that amendment to the complaint would be futile . Tindell’s claim against Rosi ni fails as a legal matter, and his allegations against the other defendants rely on an invalid theory. We note also that Tindell has not elaborated upon these allegations in his informal brief, but has instead merely reiterated his deficient claims. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err in refu sing to permit amendment. 2 

### Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

2 

### In light of Tindell’s failure to state a viable claim for relief under federal law, we understand the District Court to have declined to exerci se supplemental jurisdiction over Tindell’s state law claims. Such a c ourse was within the Court’s discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc. , 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999). We note, however, that this dismissal is without prejudice to Tindell’s right to re-file in state court. See Kach v. Hose , 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2009).