Blake v. Savitz
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 Complaint. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 7/26/2011. (ksr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RA YMOND E. BLAKE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 11-240-LPS
BETH DEBORAH SAVITZ,
Defendant.
Raymond E. Blake, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se
Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
July 26, 2011
Wilmington, Delaware
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Raymond E. Blake ("Plaintiff') filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. I Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware. He appears pro se and has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 6) The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff takes exception to a conversation with Defendant Beth Deborah Savitz
("Defendant"), his public defender, and other acts taken by her while representing Plaintiff in a
criminal matter. He asks the Court to remove her from his case, assign new counsel, and award
him compensatory and punitive damages.
III.
ST ANDARD 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 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
IPursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983, 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.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
1
favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007); Phillips v.
County ofAllegheny, 515 F .3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff 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, 551 U.S. at 94
(internal quotation marks omitted).
An action is frivolous if it "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)(l), 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; see also Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); Deutsch v. United States, 67
F .3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took
inmate's pen and refused to give it back).
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(l) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,240 (3d Cir. 1999). However,
before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U. S. C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the Court must
grant Plaintiff 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
2
recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal,
129 S.Ct. at 1949. When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the Court conducts a
two-part analysis. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the
factual and legal elements of a claim are separated. See id. The Court must accept all of the
Complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. See id. at 210
11. Second, the Court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to
show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." Id. at 211. In other words, the
complaint must do more than allege the plaintiffs entitlement to relief; rather, it must "show"
such an entitlement with its facts. Id. 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. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. 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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
IV.
DISCUSSION
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting 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." Id. at 49.
As alleged, Defendant is a public defender for the State of Delaware. Public defenders do
not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a
3
defendant in criminal proceedings. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981). Plaintiffs
claim against Defendant is not cognizable under § 1983.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.c.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Amendment would be futile.
v.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).
An appropriate Order follows.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?