HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1717
SEHU KESSA-SAA TABANSI a/k/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ALFONSO PERCY PEW, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFF :
:
V. :
:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF :
CORRECTIONS, et al., :
DEFENDANTS : 12-1717 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Masland, J., September 7, 2012:--
Plaintiff, Sehu Kessa-Saa Tabansi, a/k/a Alfonso Percy Pew, representing
1
himself, appeals this court’s order dismissing his suit against the Defendant,
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff
complains of the following matters on appeal:
1. Federal law 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed in State Court is subject to
Concurrent Jurisdiction.
2. Common Pleas Court must entertain 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a duty of
upholding federal law Constitution under Concurrent Jurisdiction.
3. Civil Rights Actions is action in nature of trespass.
4. Precedent Cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and Commonwealth
Court.
Concise Statement, filed June 11, 2012 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, alleges numerous instances of retaliatory
conduct against him by prison staff. He contends that this conduct violates his
civil rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and that this court is the
appropriate venue to prosecute his case.
1
Both the underlying complaint and the instant appeal are hand written and barely legible. The court has
tried to decipher Plaintiff’s pleadings as best it can, but there are limits to our abilities in this regard.
12-1717 CIVIL TERM
Based on Plaintiff’s largely unintelligible complaint and less than cogent
legal reasoning, this court submits that the appropriate tribunal to hear this case
is a Federal District Court.
If Plaintiff’s Complaint presents a cognizable federal 1983 claim, then
jurisdiction is appropriate in a federal court. To present such a claim, the court
looks to two essential elements:
(1) whether the conduct complained of was committed
by a person acting under color of state law; and (2)
whether this conduct deprived a person of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States.
Jones v. Clark, 607 F. Supp. 251, 254 (D.C. Pa. 1984). Here, Plaintiff complains
of the actions of prison officials acting in their official capacities, whom it is well
settled are acting under the color of state law. Id.
As to the second element, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a
protected life, liberty, or property interest, and the deprivation of that protected
interest by state action. Id. Here, Plaintiff, inter alia, alleges the “taking of legal
material, religious items, cultural and political property including hygien [sic]
articles.” Compl. at ¶35. As such, he has alleged the deprivation of material
protected by the First Amendment of the federal Constitution by prison staff.
Thus, it appears Plaintiff has pleaded the requisite facts to establish federal court
jurisdiction of his claim. Accordingly, this court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s
Complaint should be affirmed.
In conclusion, this court has endeavored to properly analyze Plaintiff’s
claims, such as they are, but as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff has assumed the risk
-2-
12-1717 CIVIL TERM
that his pleadings will be facially inadequate, or as here, largely unintelligible.
And so, having filed a Complaint that appears to this court to be a federal civil
rights action, proper jurisdiction lies in a Federal District Court rather than the
Court of Common Pleas and this court did not err entering an order of dismissal.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Sehu Kessa-Saa Tabansi a/k/a
Alfonso Percey Pew, BT-7263
SCI Frackville
1111Altamont Blvd.
Frackville, PA 17931-2699
:saa
-3-