govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-2_26-cv-00633-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
JOSHUA JOHN MARANEY, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
PENNSYLVANIA et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
 
2:26-CV-00633-CCW-MPK 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for pretrial 
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and Local 
Rule of Civil Procedure 72. 
On May 4 , 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (the “R&R”), ECF No. 6, 
recommending that the Complaint, ECF No. 4, be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous because Plaintiff lacks standing . The R&R further recommended 
that dismissal be w ith prejudice and without leave to amend with respect to Plaintiff Joshua 
Maraney, but without prejudice to non-party Devion Walters proceeding in his own right at a new 
cause of action, if he wishes to do so. See ECF No. 6. Service of the R&R was made o n the 
parties, and Mr. Maraney has filed objections. ECF No. 7. 
After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the R&R 
and the objections thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED and the 
R&R, ECF No. 6, is ADOPTED IN PART as the Opinion of the Court and REJECTED IN PART, 
as follows: 

2 
 
1. The Court adopts the recommendation to dismiss Mr. Maraney’s Complaint 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous because Plaintiff lacks standing. 
2. The Court rejects the recommendation that the dismissal be with prejudice. 
Because the basis for the dismissal is Mr. Maraney’s lack of standing, the dismissal will be 
without prejudice. See Ellison v. Am. Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery , 11 F.4th 200, 209 (3d 
Cir. 2021) ( “Because the absence of standing leaves the court without subject matter 
jurisdiction to reach a decision on the merits, dismissals ‘with prejudice’ for lack of 
standing are generally improper.”) (quoting Cottrell v. Alcon Labs., 874 F.3d 154, 164 n.7 
(3d Cir. 2017)). 
3. The Court adopts in part and rejects in part the recommendation that amendment 
would be futile , as follows. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring claims pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of another person, amendment would be futile and leave to amend 
such claims is denied. See Beaty v. Delaware Cnty., No. CV 21-1617, 2023 WL 5423020, 
at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2023) (“A § 1983 plaintiff ‘cannot sue for the deprivation of 
another’s civil rights.’”) (quoting O’Malley v. Brierley, 477 F.2d 786, 789 (3d Cir. 1973)). 
Similarly, to the extent Mr. Maraney seeks to bring criminal charges against any 
Defendant, amendment would be futile and leave to amend any such charges is denied. See 
Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596, 667 (E.D. Pa.), aff’d, 572 F. App’x 68 (3d Cir. 2014) 
(“[Plaintiff], as a private individual, cannot initiate a criminal action or compel the state or 
federal authorities to bring one.”). While it does not appear to the Court that the Complaint 
contains any other viable claims, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the 
Complaint is not particularly clear. Thus, out of an abundance of caution, the Court grants 
leave to amend as to the remainder of the claims brought in the Complaint. 

3 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Maraney shall file any amended complaint by June 
25, 2026. Any amended complaint may include only claims asserted in the original Complaint 
and may not include new claims. 
 
DATED this 8th day of June, 2026. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 /s/ Christy Criswell Wiegand 
 CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND 
 United States District Judge 
 
 
cc (via ECF email notification): 
All Counsel of Record 
cc (via U.S. Mail): 
Joshua John Maraney 
1122255 
Greene County Jail 
855 Rolling Meadows Road 
Waynesburg, PA 15370 

Passage view · GavelSight