Draughn v. McCabe

Draughn · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · June 10, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-00531-JDW

Summary

This memorandum addresses a pro se prisoner’s complaint alleging excessive use of force by correctional officers in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court screens the pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and permits the plaintiff to proceed on claims against two officers while dismissing claims against five others for failing to allege specific personal involvement. The court grants one final opportunity to amend the complaint to cure these defects and notes that challenges to the fact or duration of confinement must be brought via habeas corpus.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Joshua D. Wolson
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Decision date
June 10, 2025
Docket number
2:25-cv-00531-JDW
Procedural posture
Screening of a prisoner civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must dismiss a prisoner's complaint or any portion of it that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard governs the screening analysis; factual allegations are accepted as true and construed liberally for a pro se litigant, but conclusory allegations do not suffice.
Precedential value
Unknown; memorandum opinion with no reporter citation and metadata marked precedential status as Unknown.
Parties
Reginald Draughn v. The Honorable Thomas P. McCabe, Lt. Dioreo, Officer Dick, Officer Little, Officer Guldan, Officer Carroll, Corporal Gunthrie, Officer Hirsch
Disposition
other

Topics

section 1983police misconductprisoners rightsfourteenth amendmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

Civil rightsPrisoner civil rightsFederal civil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the allegations concerning the November 14, 2024 incident plausibly stated Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims against Lt. Dioreo and Officer Dick.
  2. Whether the allegations concerning the March 23, 2025 incident plausibly stated excessive-force claims against Officers Little, Carroll, Guldan, Hirsch, and Corporal Gunthrie.
  3. Whether the plaintiff could challenge the legality or duration of his incarceration and seek release or dismissal of his criminal case through this § 1983 action.
  4. Whether claims pleaded against the defendants in their official capacities should be construed as individual-capacity claims where the complaint did not allege facts supporting municipal liability.

Holdings

  1. The Third Amended Complaint plausibly stated Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims against Lt. Dioreo and Officer Dick.
  2. The claims against Officers Little, Carroll, Guldan, Hirsch, and Corporal Gunthrie were insufficiently pleaded because the complaint did not identify each defendant's conduct or adequately describe the circumstances surrounding the alleged force.
  3. The plaintiff could not obtain release from incarceration or dismissal of the criminal case through this § 1983 action; such a challenge must be brought through habeas corpus against appropriate defendants.
  4. The court construed the Third Amended Complaint as asserting claims against the defendants in their individual capacities rather than their official capacities.

Key quotations

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. (at 5)
To state a due process violation based on excessive force, a pretrial detainee must allege plausibly that “that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” (at 5)
Without the basic facts of what each Defendant did in the incident, I cannot “draw the reasonable inference that [any named] defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” (at 7)
To the extent he seeks to challenge the legality of his incarceration, Mr. Draughn must do so through a habeas corpus action naming the appropriate defendant(s). (at 7)

Factual background

The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at Chester County Prison, alleged that on November 14, 2024, after returning from hospitalization for a mini-stroke and while using a walker, Lt. Dioreo stomped on his head and cut his clothes while Officer Dick restrained him and squeezed his handcuffs after he refused to enter a fumigated cell. He alleged jaw and shoulder injuries from that incident. He also alleged that on March 23, 2025, Officers Little, Carroll, Guldan, and Hirsch, along with Corporal Gunthrie, assaulted and maced him, but he did not specify what each defendant did or describe the circumstances prompting the force.

Procedural history

The court previously dismissed the initial Complaint with leave to amend, then dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The court construed the plaintiff's later-filed form complaint as the operative Third Amended Complaint. On screening, the court permitted the plaintiff to proceed on Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims against Lt. Dioreo and Officer Dick, dismissed the claims against the other correctional-officer defendants for failure to state a claim, and granted one final opportunity to amend those claims.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…