Miller v. Little et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 7/29/13. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DEL AWARE
JOHN E. MILLER,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 13-388-LPS

MICHAEL LITTLE, et aI.,
Defendants.

John E. Miller, James

Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

July 29, 2013
Wilmington, Delaware

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff John E. Miller ("Plaintiff') filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging violations of his constitutional rights.! Plaintiff, an inmate, is housed at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC") in Smyrna, Delaware. Plaintiff appears pro se and has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 5) Plaintiff moves for reconsideration
(D.I. 7) of the order requiring him to pay an initial partial filing fee. Plaintiff also seeks leave to
file an amended complaint. (D.I. 8) The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and§ 1915A.

II.

BACKGROUND
The complaint contains nine counts against eleven defendants. Plaintiff raises retaliation

and excessive force claims. He seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages.

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) (in forma pauperis actions). 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. 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, his
pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to

IPursuant 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).
1

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); Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d
Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took 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) 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 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). When
determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the Court conducts a two-part analysis. See

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal
elements ofa claim are separated. See id. The Court must accept all of the complaint's well­
pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. See id. at 210-11. The

2

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.
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 plaintiff's entitlement to relief; rather, it must
"show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id. 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." 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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

IV.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff raises nine counts, eight of which are retaliation counts, against eleven

defendants. The remaining count is an excessive force claim. A civil rights complaint must state
the conduct, time, place, and persons responsible for the alleged civil rights violations. See
Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347,353 (3d Cir. 2005); Hall v. Pennsylvania State Police, 570
F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 1978).
The complaint is deficiently pled. It consists of legal conclusions without supporting
facts and fails to meet the pleading requirements of Iqbal. In addition, there are no allegations in
the complaint that indicate when, or where, the acts complained of occurred or took place.
Further, one named defendant, the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") is
immune from suit by reason of the Eleventh Amendment. See Seminole Tribe ofFla. v. Florida,

3

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) (holding Eleventh Amendment of U.S. Constitution
protects unconsenting state or state agency from suit brought in federal court by one of its own
citizens, regardless of relief sought). Another defendant, the Inmate Grievance Board, is not a
person within the meaning of § 1983. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,330 (1986)
(holding viable § 1983 claim requires plaintiff allege facts showing deprivation of constitutional
right, privilege, or immunity by person acting under color of state law).
Additionally, the complaint does not comply with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 20. Rule
20(1 )(a)(2), states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Persons may ... be joined in one action as defendants if any right
to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.
"In exercising its discretion [to join parties], the District Court must provide a reasoned
analysis that comports with the requirements of the Rule, and that is based on the specific fact
pattern presented by the plaintiffs and claims before the court." Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146,
157 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Boretsky v. Governor o/New Jersey, 433 F. App'x 73 (3d Cir. May
25, 2011). As the complaint is now pled, it is unclear if the claims are related. While joinder is
encouraged for purposes ofjudicial economy, the "Federal Rules do not contemplate joinder of
different actions against different parties which present entirely different factual and legal
issues." Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1225 (D. Kan. 2001)
(citation omitted),

4

"The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), which substantially changed the
judicial treatment of civil rights actions by state and federal prisoners, also compels compliance
with Rule 20. Specifically, under the PLRA the full filing fee must ultimately be paid in a non­
habeas action. Allowing a prisoner to include a plethora of separate, independent claims, would
circumvent the filing fee requirements of the PLRA." Mincy v. Klem, 2007 WL 1576444, at *1
(M.D. Pa. May 30, 2007); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,507 (7th Cir. 2007) ("The
[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the
sort of morass that this [multiple]-claim, [multiple]-defendant suit produced but also to ensure
that prisoners pay the required filing fees."); Smith v. Kirby, 53 F. App'x 14, 16 (lOth Cir. 2002)
(finding no abuse of discretion when district court denied leave to amend or supplement, as the
"new claims were not relevant to the claims before that court").
Based upon the foregoing discussion, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice
as noncompliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an
amended complaint. He is cautioned that the amended complaint must comply with Rule 20 and
involve only related claims or parties. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff believes that he has been
subjected to more than one violation of his rights, and to the extent that these violations are
unrelated to each other, he should file separate complaints addressing each violation along with
separate motions to proceed in forma pauperis. "It must be a new pleading which stands by itself
as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane,
809 F.Supp. 1185 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
Plaintiff is warned that the inclusion of separate, unrelated claims will be considered a
failure to comply with this Court's Order and will result in dismissal of the complaint. See Fed.

5

R. Civ. P. 20. In addition, the amended complaint or new complaints filed in compliance with
this Order shall not include new claims. Finally, the failure to file an amended complaint within
the specified time period will result in dismissal ofthe action for failure to comply with an order
of court.

V.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration (D.!. 7) of the filing fee order (DJ. 5) that requires

him to pay an initial partial filing fee. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct
manifest errors oflaw or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex
reI. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion
... must rely on one ofthree grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any ground to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's
March 15,2013 Order. Therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration (D.!. 7) will be DENIED

VI.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(l)
and in derogation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended
complaint.

An appropriate Order follows.

6