Edelin v. Correctional Care Solutions et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 11/8/12. (maw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

MICHAEL D. EDELIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL CARE SOLUTIONS,
et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 12-851-GMS
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, Michael D. Edelin ("Edelin"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (D.l.
2.) He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (D.l. 5.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 19l5A.

II. BACKGROUND
Edelin, who is insulin dependent, alleges deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. Named as defendants are two physicians, the contract medical care provider, and the
Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC").

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and

When 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).
1

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) (informapauperis
actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which 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 apro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008);
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Edelin 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) 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).
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) 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
2

may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the court
must grant Edelin 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
elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. 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 Edelin has a "plausible
claim for relief."2 Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege Edelin's
entitlement to relief; rather it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id. "[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, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

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. 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.
2

3

IV. DISCUSSION
The DOC is a named defendant. 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 Seminole Tribe ofFla. v. Florida, 517
U.S. 44, 54 (1996); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984); Edelman

v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). Hence, as an agency of the State of Delaware, the DOC is
entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See e.g. Evans v. Ford, 2004 WL
2009362, at *4 (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2004) (dismissing claim against DOC, because DOC is state
agency and DOC did not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The State of Delaware has neither consented to plaintiffs suit nor waived its immunity.
Therefore, it will be dismissed from this action.

V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the DOC will be dismissed as a defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) as it is immune from suit. Edelin will be allowed to proceed
against the remaining defendants.

An appropriate order will be entered.

__
N_i)v,_.__
"_'_, 2012
Wilmington, Delaware '

4