Bridgeforth v. Walgreens Pharmacy et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim In Lieu of an Answer filed by R. Harlow, granting 23 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Otis Michael Bridgeforth, and granting 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Walgreens Pharmacy, Korey Paff, Julia Seng. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 3/20/12. (mmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

) Civ. Action No. 10-755-GMS

V.

WALGREENS PHARMACY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, Otis Michael Bridgeforth ("Bridgeforth), who proceeds prose, and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed this lawsuit on September 3, 2010, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights under the
United States Constitution. (D.I. 2.) Before the court are the defendants' motions to dismiss and
Bridgeforth's motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against the defendant Officer Roberta
Harlow ("Harlow"). (D.I. 16, 18, 23.) For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the
motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Harlow, will deny as moot Harlow's motion to
dismiss, will grant the motion to dismiss of the remaining defendarts, and will direct the clerk of
court to close the case.

II. BACKGROUND
Bridgeforth alleges that on September 2, 2010, he was subjected to racial discrimination
when he was denied service at the defendant Walgreens Pharmacy ("Walgreens") located on
3513 North Market Street in Wilmington, Delaware. Bridgeforth attempted to file a prescription
for pain medication and presented the defendants Korey Paff ("Paff") and Julia Seng ("Seng")

(together "the defendants") with various forms of identification. 1 They refused to fill the
prescription because the identification provided was not representative of Bridgeforth's
appearance.
The defendants called the Wilmington Police Department and the defendant Officer R.
Harlow ("Harlow") responded to the call. Harlow patted down Bridgeforth, threatened to arrest
him, and told him not to return as a customer to the Walgreens. Bridgeforth left and successfully
filled his prescription at another pharmacy. On September 3, 2010,, he filed the instant complaint
"discrimination related to race, sex, and age." He seeks one million dollars in damages.
All defendants move for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Bridgeforth
moves to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Harlow.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court must accept all factual
allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff.

Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 93 (2007). Because Bridgeforth proceeds prose, his pleading
complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

i:~

liberally construed and his

string~mt

standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court conducts a two-part

'The court will refer to Walgreens, Paff, and Seng as "the Walgreen defendants."
2

analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and
legal elements of a claim are separated. !d. The court must accept all of the complaint's wellpleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. !d. at 21 0-11. Second, the court
must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that Bridgeforth
has a "plausible claim for relief." !d. at 211; see also Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege Bridgeforth's entitlement to
relief; rather, it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. A claim is facially plausible
when its factual content allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully." !d. "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'"

!d. The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to "[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." !d. "[W]here the wellpleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than a mere pos~,ibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged- but it has not shown- that the pleader is entitled to relief." !d. (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). "Courts should generally grant plaintiffs leave to amend their claims
before dismissing a complaint that is merely deficient" unless amendment would be inequitable
or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F.3d 103, 108, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

3

IV. DISCUSSION
A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Walgreens defendants move for dismissal on the grounds that the complaint fails to
allege that they acted under color of law. (D.I. 19.) Bridgeforth responds that he sufficiently
alleges a cause of action against the Walgreens defendants. (D.I. 22.)
As is well-established, when bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some
person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted
under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To act under "color of state
law" a defendant must be "clothed with the authority of state law." West, 487 U.S. at 49.
Walgreens is a public corporation, see http://www.walgreens.com, and Paff and Seng are its
employees. Hence, the Walgreens defendants are considered private persons and not state actors.
In addition, there are no allegations that the Walgreens deft;:ndants jointly engaged with
state officials in violating Bridgeforth's constitutional rights. "Private persons, jointly engaged
with state officials in the challenged action, are acting 'under color' oflaw for purposes of
§ 1983 actions." Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24,27-28 (1980) (citations omitted). However,
private persons must have been "willful participant[s] in joint action with the State or its agents."
Jd. at 27. The "inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and

the challenged action of the ... entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that
ofthe State itself." Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345,351 (1974). A plaintiff can
establish such a nexus by alleging and proving the elements of a civil conspiracy between a state
and private actor to violate an individual's rights. Melo v. Hafer, 912 F .2d 628, 63 8 n.11 (3d Cir.
1990).

4

The complaint contains no facts to support a conspiracy claim. Instead, the complaint
alleges that the defendants called the police following what, they bdieved, was the use of
improper identification in an attempt to fill prescription. The complaint does not allege that acts
were taken in concert by defendants with the specific intent to violate Bridgeforth's
constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court finds that the complaint fails to allege that the
Walgreens defendants act under color oflaw.
Finally, the complaint fails to allege facts that would subject a corporation and its
employees to liability under § 1983. The complaint merely alleges that the police department
was called following the defendants' perception that Bridgeforth aeempted to use improper
identification to fill a prescription. To the extent that the complaint attempts to allege that the
Walgreens defendants misused or misapplied State law, the claim t1ils. "An improper use or
abuse by a private party of an otherwise valid state procedure is not cognizable under § 1983."

Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 792 F.Supp. 393, 395 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (citing
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982), aff'd in part and vacated in part,
20 F.3d 1250 (3d Cir. 1994).
The Walgreens defendants are not clothed with the authority of state law. The complaint
lacks any arguable basis in law and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Therefore, the court will grant the Walgreens defendants' motion to dismiss. (D.I. 18.)

B. Voluntary Dismissal
Bridgeforth moves to dismiss the claims against Harlow, presumably pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41. (D .I. 23.) The court notes that Harlow has moved to &;miss the claims against her
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (See D.I. 16.) The court will grant Bridgeforth's motion to

5

voluntarily dismiss the claims against Harlow and will deny as

mo,::~t

Harlow's motion to dismiss.

(D.I. 16, 23.)

V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will deny as moot Harlow's motion to dismiss; will grant
the Walgreens defendants' motion to dismiss; and will grant Bridgeforth's motion to voluntarily
dismiss the claims against Harlow. To the extent Bridgeforth seeks to amend his complaint, the
court finds that any such amendment would be futile. See Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962) (indicating that district court may deny leave to amend on the basis of futility).
An appropriate order will be issued.

March~ 2012
Wilmington, Delaware

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH,
Plaintiff,
v.

WALGREENS PHARMACY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 10-755-GMS
)
)
)
)

ORDER

~)

At Wilmington this 1i:_ day of March, 2012, for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum issued this date;
1. The motion to dismiss of the defendant Roberta Harlow is denied as moot. (D .I. 16.)
2. The motion to dismiss of defendants Walgreens Pharmacy, Korey Paff, and Julia Seng
is granted. (D.I. 18.) The court finds that amendment is futile.
3. The plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against the defendant Roberta
Harlow is granted. (D.I. 23.)
4. The clerk of court is directed to close the case.

DGE