Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180419_0000987.EPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:30:46+00:00

Document:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.
On April 13, 2018, the Court received a letter from Brown, in which he clarified that he could not produce an inmate account statement for the period from September 15, 2017 through March 15, 2018 because he was not an inmate at the time. (ECF No. 7.) Given this clarification, the Court will vacate its April 9, 2018 Order (ECF No. 6). The Court will also grant Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will deem the Amended Complaint the operative pleading in this matter. Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss Brown's claims against all Defendants except Officers McCafferty and Kolb, and allow him to proceed with his claims against those officers.
The Court will grant Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is not capable of prepaying the fees to commence this action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies to Brown's Amended Complaint. That statute requires the Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id. As Brown is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
To state a claim under § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). As discussed below, Brown's Amended Complaint fails to allege a meritorious claim against the named Defendants, with the exception of his claims against Officers McCafferty and Kolb.
Brown has not stated a claim against the City of Philadelphia because he has not alleged a municipal custom or policy that led to the violation of his rights. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 must be predicated upon a municipal policy or custom). Moreover, nothing in the Amended Complaint plausibly suggests that Mayor Kenney and Commissioner Ross had any personal involvement such that they could be held responsible for anything related to Brown's arrest and subsequent prosecution. See Barkes v. First Corr. Med., Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 320 (3d Cir. 2014), reversed on other grounds, Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S.Ct. 2042 (2015). Accordingly, Brown's claims against these Defendants will be dismissed.

References: § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v.