RAMIREZ CANTARERO v. DEPARTMENT OF DE NINOS, JOVENS Y FAMILIAS DEL CONDADO DR CHESTER, PA 19380 0990 et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSE ABELARDO RAMIREZ 	:
CANTARERO, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-CV-3499
:
DEPARTMENT OF DE NINOS, 	:
JOVENS Y FAMILIAS DEL CONDADO :
DR CHESTER, PA 19380 0990, et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM
Pappert, J. 	October 15, 2026
Jose Abelardo Ramirez Cantarero asserts in an amended complaint that he was
convicted and imprisoned in violation of his constitutional rights. The Court previously
dismissed the initial complaint, written entirely in Spanish, without prejudice because
Ramirez Cantarero failed to comply with a prior order to file an English language
amended complaint or resubmit his original complaint with an English language
translation. (Dkt. No. 8.) Because Ramirez Cantarero has now submitted an English
Language Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 18), the Court will reopen the case, grant him
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screen the Amended Complaint. For the
following reasons, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 8

2
I1
Ramirez Cantarero asserts that he was tried and found guilty of statutory rape,
endangering the welfare of children, and indecent assault in March 2024. (Am. Compl.
at 3.) See also Commonwealth v. Ramirez-Cantarero, 1290 EDA 2025, on appeal from
CP-15-CR-0000401-2023 (C.P. Chester). His appeal of his sentence is pending before
the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 	Ramirez-Cantarero, 1290 EDA 2025.
Ramirez Cantarero claims that, in January 2024, police “arrested” his daughter
and took her to a juvenile justice facility, where they scared her and forced her to lie
about Ramirez Cantarero’s alleged actions. (Am. Compl. at 9, 11.) He alleges that he
was not allowed to speak with his daughter, has not been permitted to attend her legal
proceedings, and remains out of contact with her. (Id. at 9, 13, 17.) The district
attorney, Zachary Yurick, reopened a criminal case against Ramirez Cantarero that
had been previously been closed in May 2022. (Id. at 3, 10.) His daughter was
“manipula[ted]” into testifying falsely at the trial of her father. (Id.) Ramirez
Cantarero asserts that other parties, including social workers and teachers “present[ed]
fake testimonies” and failed to appear at his trial when they allegedly knew the truth.
(Id. at 3-4.)
Ramirez Cantarero asserts that, the day before she was “arrested,” his daughter
was sexually assaulted by three men who drugged her. (Id. at 11.) She was apparently
taken to the Nemours Children’s Hospital in Delaware. (Id.) Ramirez Cantarero
1 The following allegations are taken from the Amended Complaint and publicly available
dockets of which this Court may take judicial notice. See Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist.,
452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). The Court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF
docketing system. Where the Court quotes from the Complaint, punctuation, spelling, and
capitalization errors will be cleaned up as needed.
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 8

3
alleges that his daughter suffered emotional and physical injuries. (Id. at 11.) He has
filed complaints with the Department of Children, Youth and Families in Chester
County and with the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services to contest the
treatment of his daughter and to obtain information on whether perpetrators of her
sexual assault have been prosecuted. (Id. at 13, 15.) He believes he should regain
custody of his daughter. (Id. at 13.)
Ramirez Cantarero appears to name at least twenty defendants in his Amended
Complaint, including: “Department of De Ninos, Jovens, y Familias del Condado Dr
Chaster, PA 19380 0990” (Department of Children, Youth and Family Services), five
employees of that Department, “A.D.R.B.,”2 District Attorney Zachary Yurick,
Detectives Patricia Doyle and David Neives, three school employees, Nemours
Children’s Hospital in Delaware, its employee Staphanie Ann Deutsch MD, and other
Defendants that are not readily identifiable such as a “Grey,” an unnamed medical
doctor in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, “sipcologos, teraupistos, psiquiatra y consejeros, de
escoala.” (Am. Compl. at 3-9.) He brings this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at
9.) As best the Court can tell, Ramirez Cantarero, who is a convicted prisoner, seeks to
challenge his arrest and prosecution for the crimes against his daughter, raising
constitutional claims. (Id. at 3-4, 9-11.) He wants the Court to dismiss all criminal
2 Throughout his Amended Complaint, Ramirez Cantarero refers to his daughter with the
initials “A.D.R.B” and her full name. As he was told in the Court’s Order entered on July
24, 2025, (Dkt. No. 3 at 3), using the full names for minors in documents filed in the Court
is prohibited. See Local Rule 5.1.3 (providing that “personal identifiers such as Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account numbers and names of minor children
must be modified or partially redacted in all documents filed electronically or in paper”).
Because Ramirez Cantarero has used the name of his daughter in the pleading, the Court
will direct the Clerk to restrict access to it.
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 8

4
charges, revoke the sentences imposed, and clear his record. (Id. at 11.) He also seeks
monetary damages for his incarceration and to be able to stay in the United States.
(Id.)
II
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must screen the Amended Complaint
and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks
damages from an immune defendant. Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Whether a complaint
fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard
applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
Harris v. Wetzel, 822 F. App’x 128, 130 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam); see also Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the Court must determine
whether the Amended Complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). At this stage, the Court accepts the
facts alleged in Ramirez Cantarero’s Amended Complaint as true, draws all reasonable
inferences in his favor, and asks only whether the Amended Complaint, liberally
construed, contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. Shorter v. United States,
12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Fisher v.
Hollingsworth, 115 F.4th 197 (3d Cir. 2024). Conclusory allegations do not suffice.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Because Ramirez Cantarero is proceeding pro se, the Court
construes his allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021)
(citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)).
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 8

5
III
A
Ramirez Cantarero appears to argue claims on his daughter’s behalf, but he
cannot do so because a non-attorney may not bring claims on behalf of another
individual in federal court. See Murray on behalf of Purnell v. City of Philadelphia, 901
F.3d 169, 170 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Although an individual may represent herself or himself
pro se, a non-attorney may not represent other parties in federal court.”); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct
their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are
permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”). “The federal courts have routinely
adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf
of others in a representative capacity.” Gunn v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, 610 F. App’x
155, 157 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, Ramirez
Cantarero lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of his minor child. See Chang v.
Dep’t of Servs. for Child., Youth, & their Fams., Div. of Fam. Servs., 790 F. App’x 435,
437-38 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (father lacked standing to address children’s claims
on appeal); Smith v. Northampton County, No. 22-3788, 2023 WL 1767765, at *4 (E.D.
Pa. Feb. 3, 2023) (“The Third Circuit has held, unequivocally, that a parent who is not
an attorney must be represented by legal counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his
or her minor children.”). For these reasons, Ramirez Cantarero’s claims alleged on his
daughter’s behalf will be dismissed without prejudice.
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 8

6
B
Ramirez Cantarero has not stated a plausible § 1983 claim. He seeks to have his
criminal charges and sentence reversed—relief that is not properly sought via § 1983.
“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration
are the province of habeas corpus,” rather than a § 1983 action. Muhammad v. Close,
540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical
imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to
immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”). This means that “whenever [a prisoner’s]
challenge ultimately attacks the ‘core of habeas’ — the validity of the continued
conviction or the fact or length of the sentence — [the] challenge, however denominated
and regardless of the relief sought, must be brought by way of a habeas corpus
petition.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002).
A corollary of this principle is that a § 1983 plaintiff may not recover “for
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” unless he or
she “prove[s] that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make
such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus[.]” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (footnote and citation
omitted); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s §
1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) . . . if success in that action would
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 8

7
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” (emphasis
omitted)). “A claim . . . bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that
has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487
(emphasis in original). In this context, “the favorable-termination requirement is a
necessary element of the claim for relief under § 1983.” Garrett v. Murphy, 17 F.4th
419, 429 (3d Cir. 2021).
Ramirez Cantarero alleges that the basis for his conviction and sentence is
unfounded because the prosecution “manipula[ted]” his daughter and forced her to lie
at trial. (Am. Compl. at 3, 10.) He also states that other parties “present[ed] fake
testimonies” and failed to appear at his trial when they allegedly knew the truth. (Id.
at 3-4.) However, the Amended Complaint does not allege that Ramirez Cantarero’s
convictions have been invalidated, and the public docket indicates that his appeal
remains pending. Ramirez-Cantarero, 1290 EDA 2025. Since these claims challenge
the very fact of Ramirez Cantarero’s convictions and related imprisonment, they are not
cognizable in a § 1983 action. See Long v. Atl. City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 447 (3d
Cir. 2012) (Heck barred a claim that the “defendants conspired to obtain a capital
murder conviction against [plaintiff]” including by committing perjury and fabricating
evidence); Humphries v. Houghton, 442 F. App’x 626, 629 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
(“Humphries’ claims that defendants used perjury and false evidence to secure his
federal conviction are not cognizable under Heck’s favorable termination rule.”). In
other words, any claims based on the alleged unconstitutionality of his convictions are
not cognizable in a civil rights action at this time. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 7 of 8

8
these claims without prejudice to his refiling them in a new lawsuit only in the event
that Ramirez Cantarero’s convictions are ultimately invalidated.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) without prejudice. To the extent that he has
brought claims on behalf of his daughter, those claims are dismissed without prejudice
because Ramirez Cantarero cannot bring claims on behalf of the minor child. The
Amended Complaint is otherwise dismissed without prejudice to Ramirez Cantarero
challenging his convictions in an appropriate post-conviction or habeas proceeding, or to
filing a new civil rights complaint only in the event his convictions are reversed,
vacated, or otherwise invalidated. See Curry v. Yachera, 835 F.3d 373, 379 (3d Cir.
2016) (Heck-barred claims must be dismissed without prejudice). Leave to amend will
not be given at this time because the Court concludes that amendment would be futile.
See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002).
An appropriate Order follows, which dismisses this case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
Gerald J. Pappert, J.
Case 2:25-cv-03499-GJP Document 22 Filed 10/15/26 Page 8 of 8