Wright v. Court of Common Pleas

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 8/31/12. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ERRICK M. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)
) Civ. No. 12-655-GMS
)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Errick M. Wright filed this lawsuit on May 24, 2012, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 1 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (D.l. 2) Wright resides in Wilmington,
Delaware and is a frequent filer in this court. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed below, the court will dismiss the complaint
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

I. BACKGROUND
Wright alleges that the Court of Common Pleas in and for New Castle County, Delaware
violated his rights when it issued an erroneous capias prior to the time that court costs and fine
payments were due. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive
and declaratory relief.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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

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).

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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 ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89,93 (2007). Because Wright 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 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; 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
§ I 915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 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, the court must grant Wright 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 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

2

elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." !d. 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 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 Wright has a "plausible
claim for relief.,,2 Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege Wright's
entitlement to relief; rather it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. !d. "[WJhere 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, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

III. DISCUSSION
Wright's claims against the Court of Commons Pleas are barred by the State's Eleventh
Amendment immunity. See MCI Telecom. Corp. v. Bell Atl. o/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. & Hasp. v. Halderman, 465 U.8. 89 (1984); Edelman

v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974); Benn v. First Judicial Dist. o/Pa., 426 F.3d 233,238-41 (3d Cir.

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, 556 U.S. at
678 (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

2005) (all components of unified state judicial system are entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity). 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. See Brooks-McCollum v. Delaware, 213 F. App'x 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2007) (not
published). In addition, dismissal is proper because the Court of Common Pleas is not a person
for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71(1989);

Calhoun v. Young, 288 F. App'x 47 (3d Cir. 2008) (not published). Accordingly, the complaint
will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will deny as moot the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary
injunction and will dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Amendment of the complaint is futile.
An appropriate order will be entered.

b~ ~L,2012

Wilhi11ifun, Dela~are

4