Connelly v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 687 F. App'x 133

Connelly was convicted in Philadelphia state court of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to aggregate 85–170 years; he was imprisoned in the Pennsylvania DOC at SCI-Greene.
In 2013 a records supervisor at SCI-Greene completed an attestation stating the facility did not possess the sentencing orders.
Connelly sued the DOC Secretary in Greene County court claiming his confinement was illegal under the Thirteenth Amendment and Pennsylvania criminal statutes because no written sentencing order existed; he sought large monetary damages.
The Secretary removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); the magistrate judge granted dismissal and denied leave to amend.
The district court relied on documents showing that the trial judge had signed sentencing orders in most cases and that commitment sheets existed; the court found Connelly failed to state a plausible claim and that the Secretary was immune from tort suit.
Connelly appealed pro se; the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

Issue	Connelly's Argument	Secretary's Argument	Held
Whether confinement implicates the Thirteenth Amendment	Connelly: No written sentencing order, so incarceration is involuntary servitude/illegal	Secretary: Conviction and presumptively valid sentences exist; signed orders/commitments show lawful custody	Court: Thirteenth Amendment not implicated; Connelly failed to plausibly allege illegal confinement
Whether absence of a written/signed sentencing order invalidates DOC authority	Connelly: Missing written order (or signature) strips DOC authority to hold him	Secretary: Trial judge signed most orders; commitment sheets and precedent allow continued custody despite minor omissions	Court: Exhibits show signed orders/commitments; omission does not defeat DOC authority
Whether Connelly can compel criminal prosecution or bring criminal charges	Connelly: Seeks enforcement based on alleged false imprisonment/unlawful restraint	Secretary: Private citizen lacks standing to force criminal prosecution	Court: Private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in initiating prosecution; claim dismissed
Whether Secretary is liable for intentional torts/FTCA relief	Connelly: Seeks damages for false imprisonment and unlawful restraint	Secretary: Commonwealth employees enjoy immunity from tort claims; Secretary immune here	Court: Secretary immune; dismissal without leave to amend was proper

Kaymark v. Bank of Am., N.A., 783 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993) (courts may consider undisputed authentic documents attached to a motion to dismiss)
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (Thirteenth Amendment not implicated where incarceration follows a presumptively valid judgment)
Omasta v. Wainwright, 696 F.2d 1304 (11th Cir. 1983) (same principle regarding prisoners and involuntary servitude)
Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (DOC retains authority to detain despite absence of a written sentencing order)
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private citizen lacks standing to compel criminal prosecution)
Wilson v. Marrow, 917 A.2d 357 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (Commonwealth employees immune from certain intentional tort claims)
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (dismissal without leave to amend appropriate where amendment would be futile)
Evans v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 645 F.3d 650 (3d Cir. 2011) (omission of sentencing judge’s signature on commitment sheet does not necessarily deprive document of legal effect)