D L D

- 1 1 2 NO T PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 2 9 8 5

___________

MOHAMMAD SOHAIL SALEEM

,

Appellant

v.

COI DOE; COII DOE; COIII DOE;

RECEPTION STAFF CORRECTI ONS OFFICERS;

SUPERINTENDENT CAMP HI LL SCI

__________

__________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3

- 19

- cv

- 01071 )

District Judge: Honorable R o b e r t D

. M a r i a n i

____ _______ _________________________

Submitted for Possi ble D i s m i s s a l P u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o r

Summary Action Pursuant t o Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

M a r c h 4

, 2 0 2 1

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE

, and PHIPPS

, C i rcuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 17, 2021 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt a nd pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does notM o h a m m a d S o h a i l S a l e e m a p p e a l s f r o m t h e o r d e r o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t

C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a d i s m i s s i n g h i s c i v i l r i g h t s c o m p l a i n t

. F o r

t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m

.

S a l e e m i s a s t a t e p r i s o n e r h o u s e d a t t h e S t a t e C o r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n a t C a m p H i l l

,

P e n n s y l v a n i a ( “ S C I

- C a m p H i l l ” )

. I n h i s c o m p l a i n t

, S a l e e m a l l e g e d t h a t o n J u n e 2 8

,

2 0 1 8

, h e w a s l e a v i n g f

o r a n a u t h o r i z e d t e m p o r a r y a b s e n c e a n d w a s r e q u i r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e

i n a g r o u p s t r i p s e a r c h w i t h t w o o t h e r i n m a t e s

. H e a s k e d a n u n n a m e d c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r

f o r a n i n d i v i d

u a l s e a r c h

, i n f

o r m i n g h i m t h a t a g r o u

p s t r i p s e a r c h w a s a g a i n s t h i s r e l i g i o n

.

D e s p i t e S a l e e m ’ s o b

j e c t i o n

, o t h e r u n n a m e d s t a f f m e m b e r s a n d s u

p e r i o r o f f i c e r s a l l o w e d

t h e s t r i p s e a r c h t o o c c u r

.

I n J u n e 2 0 1 9

, S a l e e m f

i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t u n d e r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 a n d s o u g h t

d a m a g e s r e l i e f

. H e a l l e g e d E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t v i o l a t i o n s a n d s t a t e l a w c l a i m s a g a i n s t

s e v e r a l u n n a m e d c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s a n d u n n a m e d s t a f

f m e m b e r s

. S a l e e m a l s o n a m e d

a s a d e f e n d a n t H a r r y L a u r e l

, S u

p e r i n t e n d e n t o f S C I

- C a m p H i l l

, i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y

.

S a l e e m a s s e r t e d t h a t L a u r e l i s l i a b l e based on t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r i o r

. T h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d S a l e e m ’ s m o t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s a n d d i r e c t e d t h e

C l e r k t o e f

f e c t s e r v i c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r n o t i f i e d S a l e e m t h a t

i f s e r v i c e w a s u n a b l e t o b e c o m p l e t e d d u e t o t h e f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y n a m e d e f e n d a n t s o r

p r o v i d e a n a c c u r a t e a d d r e s s

, S a l e e m w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o c o r r e c t t h e d e f i c i e n c y

, a n d t h a t

f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y m a y r e s u l t i n d i s m i s s a l u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d

u r e 4 ( m )

.

constitut e binding precedent.D e f

e n d a n t L a u r e l f

i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d

u r e

1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m

. S a l e e m f i l e d a b r i e f i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n

. O n

A p r i l 1 0

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r f o r S a l e e m t o s h o w c a u s e w i t h i n 1 4

d a y s w h y t h e c a s e s h o u l d n o t b e d i s m i s s e d u n d e r R u l e 4 ( m )

, n o t i n g t h a t t h e u n i d e n t i f i e d

d e f e n d a n t s h a d n o t b e e n i d e n t i f i e d o r s e r v e d w i t h i n 9 0 d a y s a f t e r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e

c o m p l a i n t

. U p o n S a l e e m ’ s m o t i o n t o e x t e n d t h e t i m e t o s h o w c a u s e

, o n A p r i l 2 9

, 2 0 2 0

,

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d a n e x t e n s i o n u n t i l J u n e 2 9

, 2 0 2 0

. B y m e m o r a n d u m a n d

s e p a r a t e o r d e r e n t e r e d o n A u g u s t 2 5

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t L a u r e l ’ s

m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t against h i m

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o

d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e u n n a m e d d e f e n d a n t s w i t h o u t p r e

j u d i c e u n d e r R

u l e

4 ( m )

.

S a l e e m a p p e a l s

. W e have jurisdiction u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 Because S a l e e m

has been granted in forma paup eris status u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 1915, we review this appeal

for possible dis missal u n d e r § 1915(e)(2)(B). We may summarily affirm under Third

Circuit L

. A

. R

. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 if n o s ub s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l

.

W e exercise plenary review over the grant of a motion to dis miss u n d e r Rule

12(b)(6). See Newark Cab Ass’n v. City of Newark , 901 F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2018).

1 In dismissing an act ion for lack of proper service, the District Court “ must dismiss the

ac tion without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “ Without preju dice ” dismissals

typically are not immediately appeala ble, see Borelli v. City o f Reading , 532 F.2d 950,

951

- 5 2 (3d Cir. 1 976) (per curiam)

, but an order of dismissal without prejudice for fail ure

to effect service of process is appealable under § 1291 whe re the complaint w as filed by a

p laintiff granted leave to proceed in forma pau p eris

, s ee Welch v. Folsom , 925 F.2d 666,To sur vive a motion to dismiss , a complaint “must contain suffici ent factual matter,

accepted as true, to state a claim t o relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal

,

556 U.S. 662, 678 ( 2009) (quotation marks omitted). We accept all factual alleg ations in

the complaint as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co. , 679 F.3 d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012). We review the dismi ssal

p ursuant to Rule 4(m) for abuse of discretion. S e e Boley v. Kayma rk , 123 F.3d 756, 75 7

-

5 8 (3d Cir. 1997) ( r e v i e w i n g t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 4 ( m ) m o t i o n t o e x t e n d t i m e t o s e r v e )

.

We agree with the District Court’s d i s m i s s a l of S a l e e m ’s complaint a g a i n s t

d e f e n d a n t L a u r e l a n d i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t a m e n d m e n t w o u l d b e f u t i l e

. S e e G r a y s o n v

.

M a y v i e w S t a t e H o s p

. , 2 9 3 F

. 3 d 1 0 3

, 1 0 8 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 2 )

. The Eleventh Amendment bars

claims for damages against the C o m m o n w e a l t h o f P e n n s y l v a n i a a n d i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e

o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r official capacities. See Melo v. Hafer , 912 F.2d 628, 635 (3d Cir. 1990).

P e n n s y l v a n i a r e t a i n s E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t i n f

e d e r a l

c o u r t

. S e e 4 2 P a

. C o n s

. S t a t

. A n n

. § 8 5 2 1 ( b )

.

E v e n i f L a u r e l w e r e n o t a l r e a d y i m m u n e f r o m s u i t

, w e also agree with the District

Court’s assessment that S a l e e m ’s complaint wa s insufficient to state a civil rig hts action

a g a i n s t d e f

e n d a n t L a u r e l . “To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the

defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived him or her of a right secured by the

Constitution or the laws of the Un ited States.” Kaucher v. County of Bucks , 455 F.3d

418, 4 23 (3 d Cir. 2006). S a l e e m d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t L a u r e l w a s personal l y involve d in an

6 68 (3d Cir. 1991)

.unlawful deprivation of h i s r ights. See Evancho v. Fisher , 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir.

2005) (e xplaining that a ci vil rights complaint must allege fa cts identifying the “co nduct,

time, place, and persons r esp onsible”)

. S a l e e m c a n n o t r e l y s o l e l y o n r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r i o r

a s a t h e o r y o f l i a b i l i t y

. See Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).

M o r e o v e r

, L a u r e l

, a s a state official s u e d in h i s o fficial capacit y

, i s n o t a “per son ”

capable of bei ng sued for civil rights violations under § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of

S t ate Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (holding that while state officials literally are

persons, “neither a State nor its o ffici als acting in their official capacities are ‘person s’

under § 1983”).

A s f o r t h e u n n a m e d d e f

e n d a n t s

, a f

t e r S a l e e m f

i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t i n J u n e 2 0 1 9

, h e

d i d n o t i d e n t i f

y o r s e r v e t h o s e d e f

e n d a n t s w i t h i n R

u l e 4 ( m ) ’ s 9 0

- d a y p e r i o d

. T h u s

, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 4 ( m ) t o dismiss the action a g a i n s t t h o s e d e f e n d a n t s

without prejudice or e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r s e r v i c e u

p o n a s h o w i n g o f good cause

. A s n o t e d

a b o v e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a R u l e 4 ( m ) s h o w c a u s e o r d e r

, t h e n g r a n t e d S a l e e m ’ s

m o t i o n t o e x t e n d t h e t i m e t o s h o w c a u s e

. T h a t e x t e n s i o n a l l o w e d S a l e e m a n a d d i t i o n a l

t w o m o n t h s t o c o m p l y

, b u t S a l e e m d i d n o t r e s p o n d

. A f t e r a l m o s t a n o t h e r t w o m o n t h s

l a t e r

, w i t h s t i l l n o r e s p o n s e f r o m S a l e e m r e g a r d i n g t h e R u l e 4 ( m ) o r d e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o u n d t h a t S a l e e m f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h g o o d c a u s e

. O n t h i s r e c o r d

, w e c onclude that the

District Court d id not abuse its discretion in d ismissing t h e u n n a m e d d e f e n d a n t s u n d e r

Rule 4(m)

.F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r

d i s m i s s i n g S a l e e m ’ s c o m p l a i n t

.