Montague v. Sherwood et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 1/29/15. (rwc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRlCT OF DELA WARE
ISAAC MONTAGUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MCPL. SHERWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 13-1969-GMS
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Isaac Montague ("Montague"), was a pretrial detainee at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC") in Smyrna, Delaware, when he filed this lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (D.I. 3.) He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. CD.I.6.) The complaint was screened, Delaware
State News was dismissed as a defendant, and the case stayed pending the disposition of
Montague's criminal case. (See D.1. 8,9.) Montague advises that he entered into a plea
agreement and that the criminal case is over. (D.I. 19.) The court now proceeds to screen the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.
I. BACKGROUND
Montague alleges that on August 10, 2013, he went to 516 River Road after a shooting
occurred in his neighborhood. Montague was sweating because it was hot. The defendant Mcpl.
Sherwood ("Sherwood") shone his flashlight in Montague's face and asked for Montague's LD.
I 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).
Montague gave Sherwood his J.D. Next, Sherwood cuffed Montague, and placed him under
arrest without saying that he was under arrest. Montague alleges that he was arrested without
probable cause.
An affidavit written by the defendant detective Jeffrey Gott ("Gatt") states that Sherwood
arrested Montague because he was "sweating badly and looking very nervous." Montague was
taken into custody. He alleges that Gott charged him with assault without identifying him as
partaking in any crime. Montague entered into a plea agreement for possession of firearm
ammunition by a person prohibited. The disposition of other charges as a result of the August
10,2013 arrest is unknown. Montague seeks compensatory damages.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions
of28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 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
Montague 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).
2
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)(l) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule
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
must grant Montague 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). A
plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See
Johnson v. City ofShelby, _U,S._, 135 S.Ct. 346,347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed,
however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at
346. When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps:
3
"( 1) identifY[] the elements of the claim, (2) review[] the complaint to strike conclusory
allegations, and then (3) look[] at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluat[e]
whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged." Malleus
v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in
the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2». Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Montague raises false arrest claims. Because the success of such claims may not
necessarily invalidate a conviction, the claims are not necessarily subject to the bar of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Compare Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 126
n. 5 (3d Cir. 1998) ("claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are not the type of claims
contemplated by the court in Heck which necessarily implicate the validity of a conviction or
sentence.") with Gibson v. Superintendent, 411 F.3d 427, 451-52 (3d Cir. 2005) (finding Heck
rule applies because only evidence supporting conviction was found pursuant to constitutional
violation that was subject of plaintiff s § 1983 claim).
Montague had not yet been convicted at the time he filed his complaint. In addition, the
complaint alleges that he was charged with assault, but the plea agreement provided by him
makes no mention of the assault charge. His false arrest claims are not barred by Heck. The
court liberally construes the allegations, and finds that Montague appears to have raised
cognizable unlawful arrest claims against remaining defendants Sherwood and Gott.
4
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Montague may proceed with the wrongful arrest claims against the
remaining defendants.
An appropriate order will be entered.
~
?fI
,201.i
Wilmington, Delaware
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?