Aaron Bressi v. Tracy McCloud
20-1077
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Aaron Bressi, proceeding in forma pauperis, sued over 40 defendants (prosecutors, public defenders, judges, court staff, prison staff, private citizens) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law based on his 2016 arrest and convictions (aggravated assault, terroristic threats, stalking, reckless endangerment).
- Bressi was sentenced to 4–8 years; his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review.
- After screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing all claims with prejudice except a retaliation claim; many claims were dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
- The District Court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the claims, and granted Bressi leave to file a second amended retaliation claim; he did not file it, and the District Court then dismissed the entire action with prejudice.
- Bressi appealed multiple rulings; the appeals were consolidated. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the District Court’s pre-service screening, docketing, denial of subpoena enforcement, dismissal on pleading grounds, and dismissal for failure to amend were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-service screening / service of defendants | Court should have served defendants before dismissal | Screening under §1915A/§1915(e)(2)(B) permits pre-service dismissal of IFP complaints | Affirmed: pre-service screening and dismissal permissible |
| Docketing / treatment of motion to amend | District Court misread/should have incorporated motion explanations into amended complaint | Court properly docketed amended complaint; denial of motion as moot was within discretion | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in docketing/denying motion as moot |
| Enforcement of subpoenas | Court should have enforced subpoenas Bressi sought to serve | Court need not enforce subpoenas for claims dismissed on screening | Affirmed: no error in declining subpoena enforcement |
| Retaliation claim — pleading personal involvement | Retaliation claim adequately alleged | Claims failed to plausibly allege personal involvement of named defendants | Affirmed: retaliation claim dismissed for lack of plausible personal involvement; leave to amend given but not pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable-termination rule bars §1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (IFP screening and amendment discretion principles)
- Watson v. Rozum, 834 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2016) (elements of a retaliation claim)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (personal involvement requirement for §1983 liability)
- Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2018) (clarifying personal involvement analysis)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals)
- Geness v. Cox, 902 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 2018) (arguments forfeited if not developed on appeal)
- M.S. by & through Hall v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist., 969 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2020) (forfeiture for failure to raise issues in opening brief)
- Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Metro Commc’ns, Inc., 945 F.2d 635 (3d Cir. 1991) (appealability principles)
- ADAPT of Phila. v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 433 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2006) (final-order ripening doctrine)
- Cape May Greene, Inc. v. Warren, 698 F.2d 179 (3d Cir. 1983) (ripening of non-final orders into appealable decisions)
- Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117 (3d Cir. 1985) (district court jurisdiction while interlocutory order not immediately appealable)