Biggins v. Danberg et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 5/3/13. (cla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 12-1666-GMS
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
CARL C. DANBERG, et aI.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit on December 6, pursuant to
42 U.S.c. § 1983. 1 (0.1.2.) Biggins appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in

Jormapauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (OJ. 6,9.) The court proceeds to review and
screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND

Biggins submitted an emergency sick call request on October 25,2012, complaining of
excruciating left shoulder pain. Biggins was seen and evaluated by the defendant Dr. Bernard on
December 29,2012, but Dr. Bernard refused to increase Biggins' pain medication or to order xrays or physical therapy. Biggins alleges that the policies ofthe medical defendants lead to
excessive delay in being seen by medical.
Biggins seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

lWhen 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).

II. 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. § I 915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis
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 Biggins 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)(I) 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.

2

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 and 1915A, the court
must grant Biggins 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 Biggins has a "plausible
claim for relief."2 Id at 21 L In other words, the complaint must do more than allege Biggins'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,

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

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
Biggins names as defendants Carl Danberg ("Danberg"), Michael Deloy ("Deloy"), Perry
Phelps ("Phelps"), Deputy Warden Christopher Klein ("Klein"), James Scarborough
("Scarborough"), David Pierce ("Pierce"), Jeffrey Corothers ("Corothers"), and James Brennan
("Brennan") as "executive chief administrators operating under state authority." Biggins alleges
the foregoing defendants have knowledge of the deficient medical services provided by Correct
Care Solutions, Inc. and that they were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety.
A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs
to be liable, and cannot be held responsible for a constitutional violation which he or she neither
participated in nor approved." Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187,210 (3d Cir. 2007).
"Personal involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual
knowledge and acquiescence." Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). The
Third Circuit has reiterated that a § 1983 claim cannot be premised upon a theory of respondeat
superior and, that in order to establish liability for deprivation of a constitutional right, a party
must show personal involvement by each defendant. Brito v. United States Dep 't ofJustice, 392
F. App'x 11, 14 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-77); Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d at 1207).
Biggins provides no specific facts of any of the foregoing defendants' personal
involvement as is required to state a claim for violations of his constitutional rights. Nor does
the complaint contain facts that any defendant expressly directed the deprivation of his

4

constitutional rights, or created policies wherein subordinates had no discretion in applying them
in a fashion other than the one which actually produced the alleged deprivation. Finally, the
claims against the foregoing defendants are conclusory and fail to meet the pleading requirements
of Iqbal and Twombly. For the above reasons, the court will dismiss all claims against Danberg,
Klein, Deloy, Phelps, Scarborough, Pierce, Corothers, and Brennan as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1).

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will dismiss the defendants Carl C. Danberg, Deputy
Warden Christopher Klein, Michael Deloy, Perry Phelps, James Scarborough, David Pierce,
Jeffrey Corothers, and James Brennan and the claims against them as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1). The plaintiff has alleged what appear to be
cognizable medical needs claims against the defendants unnamed Medical Administrator,
unnamed Medical Director, Dr. Bernard, and Dr. Louis Derossiers, and he will be allowed to
proceed against them.
An appropriate order will be entered.

5