Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180329_0000806.EPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:48:12+00:00

Document:
On March 16, 2018, Gary E. Manuel, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Grace Manuel Bowman as well as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. By Memorandum and Order entered on March 20, 2018, the Court granted Mr. Manuel leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed his Complaint, and provided leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Manuel v. Bowman, No. 18-1136, 2018 WL 1403888, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2018). Specifically, the Court dismissed Mr. Manuel's Complaint for the following reasons: (1) failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) failure to state claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, the RICO statute, the Federal Tort Clkims Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Id. at *2-4. On March 27, 2018, the Court received Mr. Manuel's Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint.
As noted above, the Court previously granted Mr. Manuel leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court is required 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, J556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id. As Mr. Manuel is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). As the Court previously informed Mr. Manuel, to state a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff "must allege facts in support of the following elements: (1) [that plaintiff] is a member of a racial minority; (2) intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant; and (3) discrimination concerning one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute[, ] which includes the right to make and enforce contracts." Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Yelverton v. Lehman, No. Civ. A. 94-6114, 1996 WL 296551, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1996), aff'd mem., 175 F.3d 1012 (3d Cir. 1999)) (alterations in original). Once again, however, nothing in the Amended Complaint indicates that Ms. Bowman discriminated against him on the basis of race concerning one of the activities set forth above. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint, as pled, still fails to state a claim pursuant to § 1981.
Mr. Manuel appears to again vaguely raise claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Ms. Bowman's actions violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. As the Court previously informed Mr. Manuel, he cannot maintain a § 1983 claim against Ms. Bowman because she is not a state actor. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 635 F.3d 606, 609 (3d Cir; 2011). Accordingly, Mr. Manuel's § 1983 claims will be dismissed.

References: v. 
 § 241
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1981
 § 1981
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1981
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983