DeBruce v. City of Wilmington et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 8/11/2014. (rpg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MALACHAI DEBRUCE,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 13-2016-LPS

v.

CITY OF WILMINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Malachai DeBruce, Central Violation of Probation Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

August 11, 2014
Wilmington, Delaware

~~~, !)<
STARK, U.S. District Judge:
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Malachai DeBruce ("Plaintiff"), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 1 Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Central Violation of
Probation Center in Smyrna, Delaware. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in
jowa pauperis. (D.I. 4) The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915 and§ 1915A.

II.

BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff and his fiance, Doris Dunfee ("Dunfee"), were walking in

Wilmington, Delaware when they were stopped by police officers, handcuffed, and searched. At the
time, Dunfee was pregnant. Plaintiff protested the "illegal search and seizure." Plaintiff is black and
his fiance is white. He alleges that the couple was racially profiled as a drug dealer/ drug user
because they were walking to their home in a "high-crime area." (D.I. 2) "After illegally detaining
and arresting [them]," they were taken to the Wilmington Police Headquarters. Plaintiff alleges that
while they were being transported, a police officer informed them that "the Mayor of Wilmington
instructed us to jump out on people like you." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under
the Delaware and United States Constitutions. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the loss of
his job and home.

III.

LEGAL STAND ARDS
This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain infowa pauperis and prisoner

actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant

1

Pursuant 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

who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in jorma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. §
1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from governmental defendant); 42 U .S.C. § 1997 e
(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. 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 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) and§ 1915A(b)(l), 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. hreitzfae, 490 at 327-28; see also WiLron

v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir.
199 5) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took inmate's pen and refused to give it
back).
The legal standard for dismissing a compL'lint 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. 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 of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the Court must grant Plaintiff
leave to amend his complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grqyson v.

Mqyview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

2

A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroji

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell AtL Corp. v. Twomb/y, 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) identifyO the elements of the claim, (2)
reviewO the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) lookO 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.

IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Municipal Liability

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure and racial profiling
by Defendants. A municipality may only be held liable under § 1983 when the "execution of a
government's policy or custom ... inflicts the injury." Andrews v. Ciry ~f Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469,
1480 (3d Cir. 1990). According to Plaintiff, he was told that Wilmington's mayor had instructed
police officers to "jump out on people" like him.
A government policy is established by a "decisionmaker possessing final authority," and a
custom arises from a "course of conduct ... so permanent and well settled as to virtually constitute
law." Andrews, 895 F.2d at 1480 (citing Monell v. Department of.Social Sen;ices of the Ciry ofNew York, 436
U.S. 658 (1978)). Accordingly, a plaintiff seeking to recover from a municipality must (1) identify an

3

allegedly unconstitutional policy or custom; (2) demonstrate that the municipality, through its
deliberate and culpable conduct, was the "moving force" behind the injury alleged; and (3)
demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the alleged deprivation of federal
rights. See Board ofCounry Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997).
Plaintiffs reference to a vague statement does not adequately identify an unconstitutional
policy or custom. Nor has Plaintiff pled that Defendants were the "moving force" behind any
alleged constitutional violation. Absent an allegation that a custom or policy established by the City
of Wilmington directly caused harm to him, Plaintiffs § 1983 claim cannot stand.
Accordingly, 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)(1). However, since it
is not inconceivable that Plaintiff may be able to articulate a claim against Defendants, (or,
potentially, name alternative defendants), he will be given an opportunity to amend his pleading. See

O'Dell v. United States Gov't, 256 F. App'x 444 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2007) Qeave to amend is proper where
plaintiff's claims do not appear "patently meritless and beyond all hope of redemption").

B.

Amended Complaint

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that adds Dunfee as a plaintiff and seeks to recover
damages for the wrongful death of their unborn child. (See D.I. 9) Plaintiff alleges that police
officers manhandled Dunfee on November 8, 2013, which caused a miscarriage on November 19,
2013. However, as a non-attorney, Plaintiff may not act as an attorney for other individuals and may
only may only represent himself in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also Osei-Afaye v. The Medical

Coll. Pennrylvania, 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (non-lawyer appearing prose may not act as attorney
for his children); In the Matter of Chqjecki, 2000 WL 679000, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2000) ("Although

4

a non-attorney may appear in propria persona on his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him
and he has no authority to appear as the attorney for anyone other than himself.").
Accordingly, the Court will strike the Amended Complaint. (D.I. 9) Dunfee has the option
of filing a complaint on her own behalf.

V.

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)(1). The Court
will strike the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend his Complaint.
An appropriate Order follows.

5