Miller v. Savidge et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAUL M. MILLER, 	: Civ. No. 4:25-CV-810
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
PHILIP E. SAVIDGE, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. 	Introduction
This case comes before us for consideration of a motion to dismiss
filed by Defendants Philip Savidge and John Doe Officers. 1 	The
pro se
plaintiff, Paul Miller, filed this action against the defendants on May 8,
2025, alleging an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2
On May 7, 2023, Miller alleges he was riding his motorcycle when
he was pulled over by defendants Savidge and John Doe for an expired
1 Doc. 15.
2 Doc. 1.
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 8

2
registration. 3 Due to Miller’s active warrants, the defendants placed him
into custody and a third officer arrived on scene.4
Miller 	claims 	that 	once 	he 	was 	placed 	in 	the 	patrol 	car, 	the
defendants collectively conducted a search of his motorcycle without
obtaining a warrant or consent.5 	The search uncovered a black sock
stuffed 	inside 	the 	body 	of 	the 	motorcycle, 	which 	contained 	drug
paraphernalia. 6 	As a result, Miller was charged for possession of drug
paraphernalia to which he pleaded guilty in October of 2023 and was
sentenced to one to two months of incarceration.7 	He now brings this
action 	against 	the 	defendants 	seeking 	an 	unidentified 	amount 	of
compensatory and punitive damages.8
On October 22, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing,
inter alia, that Miller’s complaint fails to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it is barred by
Heck v.
3
Id. at 4.
4
Id. at 4–5.
5
Id. at 5.
6
Id.
7 Doc. 1 at 5;
see also Commonwealth v. Miller, CP-47-CR-0000096-2023.
8 Doc. 1 at 7.
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).9 	On November 12, 2025, Miller filed a
brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, alleging his complaint states
sufficient 	facts 	to 	set 	forth 	a 	Fourth 	Amendment 	violation. 10 	The
defendants failed to file a reply to Miller’s brief in opposition.
After consideration, we conclude that the plaintiff’s claim against
the defendants fails as a matter of law. 	Accordingly, we will grant the
defendants’ motion to dismiss.
II. 	Discussion
A. Motion to Dismiss – Standard of Review
The 	defendants 	have 	filed 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	the 	complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
12(b)(6) permits the court to dismiss a complaint if the complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.11 Under federal pleading
standards, a complaint must set forth a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 12
9 Docs. 15–16.
10 Doc. 17.
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 8

4
In determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief under
this pleading standard, a court must accept the factual allegations in the
complaint as true, and accept “all reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the
non-movant.” 13 	However, 	a 	court 	is 	not 	required 	to 	accept 	legal
conclusions or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” 14
As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has aptly summarized:
[A]fter
Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-
part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim
should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the
complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any
legal conclusions. [
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949]. Second, a District
Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the
complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a
“plausible claim for relief.”
	Id. at 1950. In other words, a
complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement
to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with
its facts.
See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234–35. As the Supreme
Court instructed in
Iqbal, “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do
not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, 	the 	complaint 	has 	alleged—but 	it 	has 	not
13
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);
Jordan v.
Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).
14
Id.;
see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice”).
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 8

5
‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ”
Iqbal, 129
S. Ct. at 1949. This “plausibility” determination will be “a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. 15
Generally, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court relies on
the complaint and its attached exhibits, as well as matters of public
record. 16 	A court can also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s]
that a defendant attached as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the
plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached] documents.”17 Additionally,
if the complaint relies on the contents of a document not physically
attached to the complaint but whose authenticity is not in dispute, the
court may consider such document in its determination. 18 	However, the
court may not rely on any other part of the record when deciding a motion
to dismiss. 19
15
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210–11 (3d Cir. 2009).
16
Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007).
17
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192,
1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
18
See Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir.
2002).
19
Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261.
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Finally, when reviewing a
pro se complaint, we are reminded that
such complaints are to be construed liberally, “so ‘as to do substantial
justice.’” 20 	We must apply the relevant law even if the
pro se plaintiff
does not mention it by name. 21
B. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be Granted.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Miller’s
claims are barred by
	Heck. 22 	After consideration, we will grant the
motion.
It is well established that “[n]o cause of action exists under § 1983
for 	‘harm 	caused 	by 	actions 	whose 	unlawfulness 	would 	render 	a
conviction or sentence invalid’ or would ‘necessarily imply the invalidity
of the conviction, unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed,
vacated, expunged, or otherwise favorably terminated.”23 	Accordingly, a
plaintiff 	may 	not 	bring 	an 	action 	under 	§ 	1983 	based 	on 	“alleged
20
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(f)).
21
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing
Higgins v.
Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).
22 Doc. 11 at 4.
23
Ortiz v. New Jersey State Police, 747 F. App’x 73, 77 (3d Cir. 2018)
(quoting
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486).
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 8

7
unconstitutional 	conduct 	that 	would 	invalidate” 	his 	underlying
conviction. 24 	The Third Circuit has established that a guilty plea is
sufficient to preclude a subsequent § 1983 claim.25
Here, the state court docket reveals that Miller pleaded guilty to
possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to a period of
incarceration of one to two months.26 	Additionally, Miller concedes that
the contents seized from the alleged illegal search are directly tied to the
basis of his criminal conviction.27 Accordingly, any damages claim Miller
brings 	challenging 	that 	proceeding 	would 	“necessarily 	imply 	the
invalidity of the conviction[.]”28 	Thus, Miller’s claim is
Heck-barred and
will be dismissed.
24
Grier v. Klem, 591 F.3d 672, 677 (3d Cir. 2010).
25
Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 209 n. 8 (3d Cir. 2005).
26
Commonwealth v. Miller, CP-47-CR-0000096-2023.
27 Doc. 1 at 5.
28
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486.
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 8

8
III. 	Conclusion
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	defendants’ 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	is
GRANTED.
An appropriate order follows.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00810-DFB Document 19 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 8