Raymond v. Looney

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 3 Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/17/2012. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS J. RAYMOND,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 12-011-RGA

THOMAS LOONEY, et al.,
Defendants.

Thomas J. Raymond, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro
Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

\7,

2012
April
Wilmington, Delaware

A~~~

1str1ct Judge:

Plaintiff Thomas J. Raymond, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (D. I. 5.) The Court proceeds to review and screen the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) and§ 1915A(b).
Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2003, he was brutally beaten until unconscious
by Defendant Wilmington Police Officer Sgt. Thomas Looney. (D.I. 3.) He also names
as defendants individuals who witnessed the incident. (D.I. 7.) Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff has filed numerous motions, including
requests for counsel, for injunctive relief, to compel, to amend, and to consolidate his
civil cases. 1 (D.I. 16, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 45, 49, 52.) Following the March
21, 2003 incident, Plaintiff was charged with two counts of second degree assault of a
law enforcement officer, three counts of offensive touching, resisting arrest, and
possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a January 16, 2006 bench trial, Plaintiff
was convicted of second degree assault, resisting arrest, criminal impersonation, and
possession of drug paraphernalia. See Raymond v. State, 919 A.2d 562 (Del. 2007).
This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma
pauperis 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). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a

1

Piaintiff has filed a dozen or more civil actions beginning with the instant
complaint.

complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to the pro se plaintiff. See
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). 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)(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 U.S. at 32728.
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 Tourscherv. 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, 556 U.S. 662 (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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 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

2

claim are separated. /d. The Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded
facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. /d. 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." Fowler, 578 F.3d 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. /d. 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, 556 U.S. at 678. 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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
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 v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
The complaint raises claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts that occurred
in 2003. Pursuant 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).
Plaintiffs complaint was signed on November 2, 2011. The envelope it was
mailed in is postmarked January 3, 2012. Section 1983 claims are subject to
Delaware's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Kost v.
Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 189-90 (3d Cir. 1993); see also 10 Del. C.§ 8119. When the

3

affirmative defense of statute of limitations is obvious from the face of the complaint
and no development of the record is necessary, a court may dismiss a time-barred
action sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. See

Smith v. Delaware Cnty. Court, 260 F. App'x 454, 455 (3d Cir. 2008); Wakefield v.
Moore, 211 F. App'x 99 (3d Cir. 2006).
The computation of time for complaints filed by pro se inmates is determined
according to the "mailbox rule" which deems a complaint filed as of the date it was
delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988). While Houston dealt specifically with the filing of a habeas appeal, the decision
has been extended by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to other prisoner filings,

see Bums v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 1998), and this Court has extended the
mailbox rule to prose§ 1983 complaints, Gibbs v. Decker, 234 F.Supp. 2d 458, 463 (D.
Del. 2002). Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the earliest the complaint could be
considered to have been filed is November 2, 2011.
Plaintiffs claims arose in 2003, but the complaint was not filed until November
2011. It is thus evident from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff's claims are barred
by the applicable two-year limitation period. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the
Complaint as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and§ 1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiff seeks release from custody and moves to amend to add claims that the
State of Delaware withheld discovery during his criminal trial. (D. I. 33, 34.) To the
extent that Plaintiff attempts to challenge his conviction and/or sentence, his sole
federal remedy for challenging the fact or duration of his confinement is by way of
habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); see also Torrence v.

4

Thompson, 435 F. App'x 56 (3d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, a plaintiff cannot recover

under§ 1983 for alleged wrongful incarceration unless he proves 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. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
Plaintiff has not alleged that his conviction or sentence was reversed or
invalidated as provided by Heck, and it does not appear that he could do so. To the
extent Plaintiff seeks damages for his current incarceration, his claim rests on an
"inarguable legal conclusion" and is, therefore, frivolous. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 326.
The Court will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and§ 1915A(b)(1). Amendment of the Complaint is futile. All pending
motions (D.I. 16, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 45, 49, 52) will be denied as moot.
An appropriate order will be entered.

rz

2012
Dated: April
Wilmington, Del ware
I

5