Trice v. O'Neill et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 9/24/13. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

WILLIAM R. TRICE,
Plaintiff,

v.
BRENDAN O'NEILL, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 13-1270-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, William R. Trice ("Trice"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Institution, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.!. 3.)
He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I.5.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).

I. BACKGROUND
The named defendants include the Public Defender of the State of Delaware and two
assistant public defenders. Trice alleges that the defendants caused him legal and emotional
injury on November 30, 2010 and August 3,2011, when they undertook to represent him and
.then were disqualified by the presiding judge. Trice seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

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. § 1915(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 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 Trice 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
may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the court

2

must grant Trice 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell At!. 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 1949.
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 of a 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 Trice has a
"plausible claim for relief.'" Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege
Trice'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, 129 S.C!. at 1949 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2».

1A 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, 129 S.Ct. at
1949 (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

III. DISCUSSION
Trice names public defender Brendan O'Neill and assistant public defenders William E.
Moore and John P. Daniello as defendants. 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). Public
defenders do not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as
counsel to a defendant in criminal proceedings. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981).
The claims against the defendants fail as a matter of law. The complaint has no arguable
basis in law or in fact and will be dismissed 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 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915(A)(b)(1). Amendment of the claim would be futile. See

Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City ofReading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976).
An appropriate order will be entered.

_-"!-~-+----L--+_' 2013

4