Filed: Mar. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: PS4-087 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-2254 _ ANTHONY E. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MERCER SCI; STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION CAMP HILL; STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE GRATERFORD; LEHIGH COUNTY, C/O LEHIGH COUNTY; LEHIGH COUNTY CLERK OF JUDICIAL RECORDS, C/O LEHIGH COUNTY SOLICITOR; BRIAN THOMPSON, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT; BRENDA GOOD
Summary: PS4-087 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 15-2254 _ ANTHONY E. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MERCER SCI; STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION CAMP HILL; STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE GRATERFORD; LEHIGH COUNTY, C/O LEHIGH COUNTY; LEHIGH COUNTY CLERK OF JUDICIAL RECORDS, C/O LEHIGH COUNTY SOLICITOR; BRIAN THOMPSON, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT; BRENDA GOODA..
More
PS4-087 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-2254
___________
ANTHONY E. WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MERCER SCI; STATE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION CAMP HILL; STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE
GRATERFORD; LEHIGH COUNTY, C/O LEHIGH COUNTY; LEHIGH COUNTY
CLERK OF JUDICIAL RECORDS, C/O LEHIGH COUNTY SOLICITOR; BRIAN
THOMPSON, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SUPERINTENDENT; BRENDA GOODALL, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS RECORD SUPERVISOR; PAUL G. THERIAULT, INDIVIDUAL
AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY ASCCPM; MARTIN P. AUBEL, INDIVIDUAL
AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DEPUTY SUPERVISOR; AMANDA
CAUVEL, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY RECORDS
SPECIALIST; JEFFREY P. HOOVLER, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS FACILITY GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR; MARY ANN
DURBOROW, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS RECORD
SPECIALIST II; LINDA GRAVES, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS UNIT MANAGER; MICHAEL APPELGARTH, INDIVIDUAL AND
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COUNSELOR; TIMOTHY HENRY, INDIVIDUAL
AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DCC DIRECTOR; TERRI L. RICHARDSON,
INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; NORA M. WILLIAMS,
INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MONICA B. KNOWLDEN,
INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MELISSA L. MYERS,
INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JAMES T. ANTHONY,
INDIVIDUAL AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS JUDGE; TONI A. REMER,
INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF DEPUTY OF
LEHIGH COUNTY; VIRGINIA SCHULER, INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS ASST. CHIEF DEPUTY OF LEHIGH COUNTY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 5-14-cv-03765)
District Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 3, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 10, 2016)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Anthony Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights action.
For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Williams, a former state prisoner, filed an action in District Court pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, several state
correctional institutions, Lehigh County, and numerous individuals in connection with the
calculation of his date of release from prison. The District Court reviewed the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On August 4, 2014, the District Court dismissed
with prejudice Williams’ claims against the Commonwealth entities, reasoning that these
defendants are not subject to suit under § 1983 and are entitled to Eleventh Amendment
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
immunity. The District Court dismissed without prejudice Williams’ claims against the
remaining defendants because he had not alleged how his sentence was improperly
calculated, the rights that were violated, and how each defendant was personally involved
in violating his rights. Williams was afforded 30 days to file an amended complaint.
On November 24, 2014, after the 30-day period had expired, Williams filed an
amended complaint claiming violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
and false imprisonment. Williams alleged that his maximum sentence had expired on or
before March 6, 2011, but that he was not released from prison until May 25, 2012, after
he successfully sought relief in state court. On December 29, 2014, Williams moved for
reconsideration of the August 4, 2014 order of dismissal. Williams stated that his
original complaint was missing the statement of facts section and that he included this
section in his amended complaint. Williams also stated that the Clerk’s Office had sent
the August 4, 2014 decision to the wrong address.
On January 13, 2015, the District Court denied the motion for reconsideration on
the ground that Williams had not articulated a cognizable basis to reconsider its dismissal
order. The District Court noted that the Clerk’s Office had recorded his address
incorrectly but stated that it would review his amended complaint as if it had been timely
filed. The District Court again dismissed with prejudice Williams’ claims against the
Commonwealth entities. The District Court also dismissed with prejudice Williams’
claims against a state court judge based on judicial immunity and his claims against
Lehigh County for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
3
With regard to the remaining defendants, the District Court dismissed Williams’
claims for damages against state officials in their official capacities, and ruled that he had
failed to state claims for violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in
their individual capacities. The District Court explained that Williams’ claim that the
defendants had imprisoned him beyond his maximum release date is cognizable under the
Eighth Amendment, but that Williams had not included any allegations plausibly
establishing that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference or were personally
involved in violating his rights. The District Court gave Williams 30 days to file a
second amended complaint as to these defendants.
On March 10, 2015, Williams moved for a 180-day extension of time to file a
second amended complaint. He asserted that the Clerk’s Office did not send him the
Court’s decision when it was issued and that he needed an extension due to the number of
defendants he named in his complaint, his lack of a readily available computer, and an
impending sheriff’s sale of his home. Williams also asked for other relief, including
having the District Court send his correspondence via certified mail.
On March 11, 2015, the District Court granted Williams’ motion to the extent he
asked for an extension of time, but gave him 30 days to file a second amended complaint.
Noting that the docket reflected that the Clerk’s Office had mailed its decision to the
address Williams provided, the District Court explained that Williams had already had 60
days to file his second amended complaint and that his request for 180 days was
unreasonable. The District Court denied Williams’ other requests, ruled that no further
4
extensions would be granted, and stated that it would dismiss the action without further
notice if Williams failed to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. On April
28, 2015, after more than 30 days had passed and Williams had not filed a second
amended complaint, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice. This appeal
followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is
plenary. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).
Williams’ brief consists primarily of the procedural history of his case and the
history of his proceedings in state court challenging the calculation of his sentence.
Williams appears to contend that the District Court’s order of dismissal was erroneous in
light of its knowledge that he was not receiving its orders and his request to receive court
correspondence via certified mail. He asks that his case be reopened and scheduled for
trial. Williams asserts that his claim is not frivolous, as shown by the relief he was
granted in state court.
The District Court docket reflects that Williams may not have timely received the
District Court’s initial decision entered on August 4, 2014, allowing him to file an
amended complaint, because the street address in the Court’s file was missing a number.
Williams, however, suffered no prejudice because the District Court reviewed his
amended complaint and allowed him to file a second amended complaint correcting its
deficiencies.
5
The District Court’s subsequent decisions appear to have been sent to the address
Williams provided. Williams’ notice of appeal, filed on May 11, 2015, demonstrates that
he timely received the District Court’s April 28, 2015 case dispositive order. To the
extent Williams did not timely receive the January 13, 2015 decision allowing him to file
a second amended complaint,1 he was not prejudiced because he was granted an
extension of time to file it. Although Williams asserts in his brief that he did not receive
the March 11, 2015 order granting his motion for an extension of time, he does not state
that he ever inquired as to the status of his motion even though he allegedly had problems
receiving court correspondence. The District Court did not dismiss his action until April
28, 2015, almost seven weeks later.
Williams also does not state that he is prepared to file a second amended
complaint. Instead, he seeks to proceed to trial. However, as explained by the District
Court, at this stage Williams was required to amend his complaint and allege how each
named defendant was personally involved in the purported violation of his rights. See
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207-08 (3d Cir. 1988) (dismissing claims against
defendants where plaintiff had not averred personal involvement in the alleged wrongs).
The District Court did not err in ruling that his amended complaint was deficient in this
regard.
1
The District Court docket reflects that on February 9, 2015, the Clerk’s Office sent
Williams another copy of the January 13, 2015 decision after he reported that he had not
received it.
6
The District Court gave Williams more than one opportunity to amend his
complaint and he did not correct its deficiencies. Accordingly, we will affirm the
judgment of the District Court.
7
