Scott v. Delaware Department of Family Services

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 2/28/13. (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KAREE SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 12-195-LPS

V.

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY SERVICES,
Defendant.

Karee Scott, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

February 28, 2013
Wilmington, Delaware

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Karee Scott ("Plaintiff') filed this action alleging discrimination by reason of

mental illness and race. (D.I. 2) She appears prose and proceeds in forma pauperis. The Court
dismissed the original Complaint and gave Plaintiff leave to amend. (See D.I. 7, 8) Plaintiff
timely filed an Amended Complaint which the Court proceeds to review and screen pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

II.

BACKGROUND
The original Complaint named as its sole defendant the Delaware Department of Family

Services. All claims against it were dismissed on the basis of its Eleventh Amendment
immunity. In addition, the Court noted that it could not grant Plaintiff the relief she sought
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Plaintiff was given leave to amend since it appeared
plausible that she might be able to articulate a claim against individual defendants. The
Amended Complaint once again names as its sole defendant the Delaware Department of Family
Services.
Plaintiffs parental rights were terminated. The Amended Complaint alleges that her
rights were violated based upon her mental illness, financial situation, marital status, and living
situation. (D.I. 9) Plaintiff seeks an apology and monetary compensation.

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS
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). The Court must accept all factual

I
I

I

I

1

I

j
J

l

I

I

allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most 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, her pleading is liberally construed and her
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), 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).

The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 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 of28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must grant Plaintiffleave to amend her
complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

IV.

DISCUSSION

The Amended Complaint raises the same claims as those in the original Complaint.
Plaintiff failed to cure her pleading defects, despite the fact that she was given leave to amend to
name proper defendants. As previously discussed by this Court, the Delaware Department of

I

I

I

2

I

I

(

'
l

I

Family Services is immune from suit by reason of the Eleventh Amendment. See MCI Telecom.

Corp. v. Bell At/. ofPa., 271 F.3d 491,503 (3d Cir. 2001).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

V.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as Defendant is immune from suit. The Court provided Plaintiff an
opportunity to correct her pleading deficiencies, to no avail. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962) (stating court may deny request for leave to amend where there is "repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed"). Further amendment would be futile.
An appropriate Order follows.

3