NERI v. PENNSAUKEN LIBRARY, 1:14-cv-06805

Plaintiff Philip Neri, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued Pennsauken Library, Pennsauken Township, librarian Anthony Dimimeo, librarian Ms. Diaz, and Mayor Jack Killian under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from an August 2014 library visit.
Neri alleges that while using a library computer for legal research, a link produced adult pornographic pop-ups; he deleted them, but library staff called police and he was arrested for a parole violation and later reincarcerated.
Neri claims violation of his First Amendment rights (viewing allegedly protected material) and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights (no posted internet policy) and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) after granting in forma pauperis status and concluded several defendants’ claims must be dismissed for legal reasons.
The Court dismissed claims against Pennsauken Library with prejudice (not a person under § 1983) and dismissed claims against Mayor Killian and Ms. Diaz without prejudice for lack of personal involvement; claims against Pennsauken Township and Dimimeo were dismissed without prejudice as barred by Heck and for failing to state due process/First Amendment claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pennsauken Library is a "person" under § 1983	Neri sued the library as the actor who caused his arrest/parole revocation	Library is an entity not subject to § 1983 liability as a "person"	Library not a person under § 1983; claim dismissed with prejudice
Whether Mayor Killian and Ms. Diaz are liable under § 1983 for lack of posted policy	Neri argues municipal officials are responsible for failing to require posted internet rules	Defendants argue no personal involvement; allegations amount to respondeat superior	Claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege personal involvement
Whether Neri's claims for damages or equitable relief are barred by Heck because success would imply invalidity of parole revocation	Neri contends library conduct violated his rights and led to unlawful parole revocation	Defendants invoke Heck: challenges that would imply invalidity of confinement are not cognizable in § 1983 absent favorable termination	Court held Heck bars damages and equitable relief that would necessarily invalidate parole revocation; claims dismissed without prejudice
Whether appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted	Neri requested counsel for his civil rights claims	Defendants argue plaintiff must first state a viable claim; appointment is discretionary	Court denied appointment because plaintiff failed to state any viable § 1983 claim at screening stage

Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep't, 635 F.3d 606 (3d Cir.) (establishing § 1983 elements)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires state action)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content allowing inference of liability)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claims that imply invalidity of conviction/sentence barred absent favorable termination)
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (narrow exception to Heck for challenges to parole procedures seeking review, not immediate release)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (minimum due process protections for parole revocation proceedings)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus is exclusive remedy to challenge fact or duration of confinement)