Dip v. Brittain et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SINORN DIP,
Plaintiff
v.
KATHERIN BRITTAIN, et al.
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-02530
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is a complaint filed by Plaintiff Sinorn Dip (“Dip”). (Doc. 1). The
complaint fails to allege any factual details giving rise to the claims set forth in the complaint.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and grant Dip the
opportunity to file an amended complaint.
I. 	BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The court received and docketed Dip’s complaint on December 29, 2025. (Doc. 1.)
That same day, the Court entered an administrative order directing Dip to file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the outstanding filing fee. (Doc. 3). On January 29, 2026, the
Court received the filing fee. (Doc. 4.) The Court will now screen the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
II. 	STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is obligated, prior to service of process, to screen
a civil complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); James v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 230 Fed.
App’x 195, 197 (3d Cir. 2007) (not precedential). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it
Case 3:25-cv-02530-KM-EW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

2
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Mitchell v.
Dodrill, 696 F. Supp. 2d 454, 471 (M.D. Pa. 2010). In performing this mandatory screening
function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell, 696 F. Supp. 2d at 471; Banks v. Cty.
of Allegheny, 568 F. Supp. 2d 579, 588 (W.D. Pa. 2008).
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move
to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). To assess the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must first
take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, then identify mere conclusions
which are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and finally determine whether the
complaint’s factual allegations, taken as true, could plausibly satisfy the elements of the legal
claim. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011). In deciding a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well
as “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court
may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
After recognizing the required elements which make up the legal claim, a court should
“begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff
must provide some factual ground for relief, which “requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 	678. 	Thus, 	courts 	“need 	not 	credit 	a 	complaint’s 	‘bald 	assertions’ 	or 	‘legal
Case 3:25-cv-02530-KM-EW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

3
conclusions’ . . . .” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting
In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor
need the court assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged.
Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526
(1983).
A court must then determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations give rise to
a plausible claim for relief. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sheridan v. NGK Metals
Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010). The court must accept as true all allegations in
the complaint, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d
1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). This “presumption of truth attaches only to those allegations for
which there is sufficient factual matter to render them plausible on their face.” Schuchardt v.
President of the United States, 839 F.3d 336, 347 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation
omitted). The plausibility determination is context-specific and does not impose a heightened
pleading requirement. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347.
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Thus, a well-pleaded
complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff’s claimed right to relief
beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a “short and plain” statement of a cause of
action. There is no requirement that the pleading be specific or probable. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d
Case 3:25-cv-02530-KM-EW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

4
at 347 (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d at 224, 233-234 (3d Cir. 2008). Rule 8(a)
requires a “showing that ‘the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233 (citing
Iqbal, 550 U.S. at 545).
With the aforementioned standards in mind, a document filed pro se is “to be liberally
construed.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro se complaint, “however inartfully
pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”
and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). Further, the Third Circuit has instructed that if
a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit
a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
III. 	D ISCUSSION
Dip alleges that all events giving rise to his claims occurred within the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections at the State Correctional Institution Frackville (“SCI-Frackville”)
while he was incarcerated. (Doc. 1, at 4-5). When asked to provide the facts underlying his
claims, Dip stated the following:
All officials – Defendants engaged in a consistent pattern of misconduct when
I was denied my personal property –
All additional Facts under the claims will be added in an Amended complaint.
Case 3:25-cv-02530-KM-EW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 5

5
(Doc. 1, at 5). Based on these alleged facts, Dip brings Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397
(1971) and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against four defendants. (Doc. 1, at 2-3).
The alleged facts do not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Nothing alleged
puts Defendants on notice of the claims raised against them. Therefore, the complaint will be
dismissed.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint for failing to state a
claim for which relief may be granted. The Court will allow Dip to file an amended complaint
to cure the pleading defects set forth above. The amended complaint will be titled “Amended
Complaint” and be filed under the above captioned case number.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02530-KM-EW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5