Piper v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM ORDER - Plaintiff is given leave to amend his Complaint w/in 30-days or the case shall be closed. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 8/5/11. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ROBERT PIPER,
Plaintiff,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
) Civ. No. 11-284-SLR
)
)
)
)

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this"""'day of

~

, 2011, having screened the case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, and plaintiff is
given leave to amend, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Robert Piper ("plaintiff'), a former inmate within the
Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC"), who proceeds pro se and has been
granted in forma pauperis status, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 1 (D.1. 3)
2. 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
1When 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).

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 a pro se
plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). 8ecause 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 v. Pardus, 551
U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
3. 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)(8)(i) and

§ 1915A(b)(1), 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).
4. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used
when ruling on Rule 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)(8». However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening

-2­

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).

5. A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _U.S._, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atl. 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 of a 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 plaintiff
has a "plausible claim for relief."2 Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do
more than allege plaintiff's entitlement to relief; rather it must "show" such an
entitlement with its facts. Id. U[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».

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

6. Discussion. Plaintiff alleges that as he reached the end of his sentence, he
"noticed that [he] wasn't getting out on time." Plaintiff questioned several officers, was
provided updated status sheets and noticed that his start date was incorrect. He filed
grievances regarding the issue, but received no response. Plaintiff telephoned the
DOC upon his release, but his messages were not returned. He seeks to hold the DOC
accountable for having him serve extra days. (D.1. 3) Plaintiff has since been released.
(D.1. 7)
7. Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff has named as defendants the DOC, Central
Records Department of the DOC, and the Sussex Violation of Probation Center
("SVOP"). Plaintiffs claims are barred by the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity.

See MCI Telecom. Corp. v. Bell Atl. of Pa., 271 F.3d 491, 503 (3d Cir. 2001). The
Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an unconsenting state
or state agency from a suit brought in federal court by one of its own citizens,
regardless of the relief sought. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89 (1984); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). The State has not waived its
immunity from suit in federal court, and although Congress can abrogate a state's
sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Brooks-McCollum v. Delaware, 213 F. App'x 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2007) (not published)
(citations omitted).
8. Moreover, to state a viable § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing
a deprivation of a constitutional right, privilege or immunity by a person acting under
color of state law. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986). The claims

-4­

against the named defendants are barred by Will v. Michigan Oep't f State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 69 (1989), which holds that neither states nor state officials sued in their official
capacities for money damages are "persons" within the meaning of § 1983. See
Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005). Finally, State correctional

institutions are arms of the state and not persons subject to liability under § 1983. See
Green v. Howard R. Young Corr. Inst., 229 F.R.D. 99, 102 (D. Del. 2005).

9. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted as the named defendants are immune
from suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). However, since it
appears plausible that plaintiff may be able to articulate a claim against a defendant or
name alternative defendants, he will be given an opportunity to amend his pleading.
See O'Dell v. United States Gov't, 256 F. App'x 444 (3d Cir. 2007) (not published)

(leave to amend is proper where the plaintiff's claims do not appear "patently meritless
and beyond all hope of redemption").3
1O. Plaintiff is given leave to amend the complaint. The amended complaint
shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If plaintiff does not file
an amended complaint within the time allowed. then the case will be closed.

UNITED STAT S DISTRICT JUDGE

3A prisoner has the right to be released from his sentence, and detention beyond
the termination of the sentence may be in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Sample
v. Oiecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1989).

-5­