Parnell v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
693 F. App'x 120
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Pro se prisoner Brian Parnell sued the Pennsylvania DOC Secretary in state court claiming he was held in involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment and under state tort/statutory claims because no written sentencing order was generated for his convictions.
- Parnell's criminal docket showed convictions for second-degree murder and burglary and a life imprisonment sentence. The DOC produced a Commitment form and Sentencing Sheet that indicated a life sentence.
- The Secretary removed the action to federal court; the parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.
- The Magistrate Judge denied Parnell’s motion to remand and granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- District Court dismissed Parnell’s federal and state claims with prejudice as futile to amend. Parnell appealed to the Third Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention without a written sentencing order violates the Thirteenth Amendment (involuntary servitude) | Parnell: absence of a written sentencing order renders his detention unlawful and constitutes involuntary servitude | Secretary: criminal docket and sentencing documents show a valid sentence; incarceration is pursuant to presumptively valid judgment | Court: Dismissed — no plausible Thirteenth Amendment claim where detention is pursuant to a valid judgment |
| Whether state-law false imprisonment/unlawful restraint claims are actionable | Parnell: detention without a written order supports state tort/statutory claims | Secretary: official immunity applies because custody was undertaken within scope of authority based on valid sentence | Court: Dismissed — Secretary immune; state claims barred |
| Whether removal was improper and the case should be remanded | Parnell: sought remand to state court | Secretary: removal was proper; federal court may resolve federal claim and dismiss state claims | Court: Denied remand; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice to amendment | Parnell: implied request to amend | Secretary: amendment would be futile given record showing valid sentence and immunity | Court: Dismissed with prejudice — amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard that incarceration pursuant to a presumptively valid judgment does not implicate the Thirteenth Amendment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (record of valid sentence suffices to authorize detention despite absence of written sentencing order)
- Wilson v. Marrow, 917 A.2d 357 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (official immunity for custody decisions made within scope of authority)
- Mitchell v. Luckenbill, 680 F. Supp. 2d 672 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (recognizing custodial immunity defenses to state tort claims)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (amendment denial appropriate when amendment would be futile)