Shipley v. Becker et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Dismissing claims against the Task Force and allowing Plaintiff to proceed with claims against Becker and Cider. An appropriate order will be entered. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 6/20/2011. (dlk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

VICTAR SHIPLEY,
Plaintiff,

v.
KEVIN BECKER, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 1O-1119-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Victar Shipley ("Shipley"), an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution ("HRYCI), Wilmington, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1
(D.I. 2.) He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 4.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.

I. BACKGROUND
The defendants Kevin Becker ("Becker") and Officer Cider ("Cider") are both members
of the defendant Wilmington Police Task Force Unit ("Task Force"). Shipley alleges excessive
force, false arrest, and false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. He alleges that Becker and
the Task Force kicked in his door and chipped his teeth. This resulted in his "lock-up" from
October 15,2009 until June 12,2020, when the case was dropped. Plaintiff alleges that he was
framed by Becker. He next alleges that on November 12,2010, the Task Force threw bombs in

IWhen 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).

his home, he was pistol whipped, chocked, and slammed around, apparently by Cider. Shipley
seeks compensatory damages.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and
prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis
actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
defendant); 42 U.S.c. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The
court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to apro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008);
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,93 (2007). Because Shipley proceeds pro se, his pleading is

liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94
(citations omitted).
An action is frivolous ifit "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(I), a

court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 at 327­
28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); see, e.g., Deutsch v. United States, 67

F .3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took an
inmate's pen and refused to give it back).

-2­

The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on
12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)).
However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the court
must grant Shipley leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, -U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). 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." Id. at 1949.
When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court conducts a two-part analysis.

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal
elements ofa claim are separated. Id The court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded
facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id at 210-11. Second, the court must
determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that Shipley has a
"plausible claim for relief."2 Id at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege

2A 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 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id "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. ", Id

-3­

Shipley's entitlement to relief; rather it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id
"[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than a mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to
relief." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

III. DISCUSSION
Shipley names the Task Force as a defendant, basically using it to identify Becker and
Cider as members of the Task Force. To the extent that Shipley targets this municipal-entity
defendant, he has not alleged that his injuries were the result of a municipal "government's
policy or custom," so as to implicate municipal liability under § 1983. See Monell v. Department
o/Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Nor has he alleged any other elements necessary to
implicate municipal liability. To recover from a municipality a plaintiff must (1) identify an
allegedly unconstitutional policy or custom, (2) demonstrate that the municipality, through its
deliberate and culpable conduct, was the "moving force" behind the injury alleged; and (3)
demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the alleged deprivation of
federal rights. Board o/the County Comm 'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397,404 (1997).
Shipley has not pled that the Task Force was the "moving force" behind any alleged
constitutional violation. The complaint merely alleges that Becker and Cider were members of
the Task Force. Absent any allegation that a custom or policy established by the Task Force
directly caused harm to Shipley, his § 1983 claims cannot stand. The claims against the Task
Force are frivolous and will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §
1915(b)(1).

-4­

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the claims against the Task Force will be dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Shipley may proceed with his claims
against Becker and Cider.
An appropriate order will be entered.

-

..,J ~ 10 ,2011
Wilmington, Delaware

-5­