Vernell L. Sebrell v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY LYNN ABRAHAM On Appeal From the United States District Court For…

DPS-6 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3455
________________
VERNELL L. SEBRELL,
Appellant
v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY LYNN ABRAHAM
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-01682)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
October 14, 2005
Before: ROTH, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: December 14, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Vernell Sebrell, commenced this action by filing a one-page pro se
complaint against the Philadelphia District Attorney. Among other things, Sebrell alleged
that the District Attorney failed to bring “corrupt cops” to justice and violated Sebrell’s
civil rights by failing to investigate complaints of “terroristic threats by police officers.”

-- 1 of 2 --

The District Court granted Sebrell’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state
a claim. The District Court noted that even under a liberal reading of the pro se
complaint, Sebrell failed to allege an actionable constitutional violation or conduct that
falls outside the scope of the District Attorney’s immunity from suit. Sebrell timely filed
this appeal.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have granted
Sebrell leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and will dismiss the appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Insofar as Sebrell filed this action in an effort to recover money damages (a fact
that is unclear from the complaint), the District Attorney is plainly immune from suit.
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976); Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454 (3d Cir.
1992). To the extent that Sebrell sought an unspecified form of injunctive relief, or
merely sought “justice,” the district court likewise properly dismissed the complaint.
Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dep’t, 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d Cir. 1996). Sebrell’s
allegations simply do not state an actionable claim upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

-- 2 of 2 --