Montague v. Sherwood et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 3/25/14. (cla, )

t

[
!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ISAAC MONTAGUE,
Plaintiff,
v.

MCPL. SHERWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

I
t

Civ. No. 13-1969-GMS

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Isaac Montague ("Montague"), a pretrial detainee inmate at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (D.I. 3.) He appears prose and was granted permission to proceed informa
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 6.) The case was closed after Montague failed to

submit his authorization form. The form was submitted, and the court will reopen the case. 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") shined his flashlight in Montague's face and asked for Montague's I.D.
Montague gave Sherwood his I.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

1

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).

'

I

I
;

(

I

An affidavit written by the defendant detective Jeffrey Gott ("Gott") 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.
The defendant Delaware State News ("State News") published an article stating that
Montague was chased, along with others, inside 516 River Road. Montague alleges
"defamement of character" by State News. He seeks compensatory 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) (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 a prose 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 prose, 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
2

theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 at 32728; 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
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 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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps:
"(1) identify[] the elements ofthe 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.
3

I
!

t

!

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
A. Unlawful Arrest
Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested without probable cause. "To state a claim for false
arrest under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that there was an arrest; and
(2) that the arrest was made without probable cause." 2 James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d
675,680 (3d Cir. 2012); see also Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274-75 (1994). Public records
indicate that the criminal charges against Montague remain pending.
Because Montague's claim of an arrest without probable cause may imply that his
potential conviction on his pending criminal charges is invalid, the claim must be stayed pending
resolution of those charges. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394 (2007). The court will stay
this case with respect to the unlawful arrest warrant claims, and will defer reaching the merits of
the claims and the threshold question of whether such claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477,487 (1994)/ until the disposition of plaintiffs pending criminal charges in State
Court.

2

"'Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and the circumstances within the
arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable person to
believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested."' Merkle v.
Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Orsatti v. New Jersey State
Police, 71 F.3d 480, 482 (3d Cir. 1995)). The arresting officer must only reasonably believe at
the time of the arrest that an offense is being committed, a significantly lower burden than
proving guilt at trial. See Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F .3d 595, 602 (3d Cir. 2005).
3

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that where success in a § 1983 action would implicitly
call into question the validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the plaintiff must first
achieve favorable termination of his available state or federal habeas remedies to challenge the
underlying conviction or sentence.

4

I
!

B. Defamation

Montague raises a supplemental State claim of defamation against State News. Under
Delaware law, generally, the elements of defamation are: (1) a defamatory communication; (2)
publication; (3) the communication refers to the plaintiff (4) a third party's understanding of the
communication's defamatory character and (5) injury. Bickling v. Kent Gen. Hasp., Inc., 872 F.
Supp. 1299, 1307 (D. Del. 1994).
Here, Montague alleges that State News defamed him when it published an article that he
was chased, with others, inside 516 River Road. Notably, Montague does not deny that he was at
the 516 River Road address. Liberally construing the complaint and drawing on its judicial
experience and common sense, the court determines that the defamation claim is frivolous.
Montague has failed to state a plausible claim for relief. Therefore, the court will dismiss the
defamation claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and§ 1915A(b)(l).
IV. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the claim against State News will be dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and§ 1915A(b)(1). The wrongful arrest claim will be
stayed until resolution of the criminal charges pending against plaintiff in State C urt.
An appropriate order will be entered.

fnj-J. ?-5

,2014

Wi mmgton, Delaware

5