Turner v. Pierce et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 06/25/2014. (etg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ORIN TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER COUP, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) Civ. Action No. 14-276-GMS
)
)
)

)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Orin Turner ("Turner"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983. 1 (D.L 3.)
He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.c. § 1915. (D.L 5,7.) The court proceeds to review and screen the complaint.

I. BACKGROUND
On September 11,2013, Turner sent a formal complaint to the Office of the
Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC"). Therein, Turner complained
about roaches, denial of education, religious services, schooling, jobs, and manufactured
disciplinary reports. On September 24,2013, Turner was moved from the Medium-High
Security Unit ("MHU") to the Security Housing Unit ("SHU") without a disciplinary charge, a
hearing, or due process. Subsequent to the transfer, Turner has either written a named defendant
or submitted a grievance to a named defendant seeking a transfer to return to MHU. Turner

lWhen 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).

alleges that he was transferred to SHU in retaliation for his September 11, 2013 complaint to the
Commissioner. He seeks compensatory damages.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in Jorma 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 US.C. § 1915(e)(2) (inJormapauperis
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 ojAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008);

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 US. 89, 93 (2007). Because Turner 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 US. 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)(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; 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).

2

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 Turner 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). 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 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

3

III. DISCUSSION
Turner alleges that he was retaliated against and transferred to SHU after he complained
to the DOC Commissioner of the conditions of confinement at the VCC. "Retaliation for the
exercise of constitutionally protected rights is itself a violation of rights secured by the
Constitution actionable under § 1983." White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 111-12 (3d Cir. 1990).
In screening this claim, the court assumes, without deciding, that the letter is a form of protected
speech. It has long been established that the First Amendment bars retaliation for protected
speech. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 592 (1998).
Proof of a retaliation claim requires Turner demonstrate that: (1) he engaged in protected
activity; (2) he was subjected to adverse actions by a state actor; and (3) the protected activity
was a substantial motivating factor in the state actor's decision to take adverse action. Carter v.

McGrady, 292 F.3d 152, 158 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Mt. Healthy Bd. ofEduc. v. Doyle, 429 U.S.
274,287 (1977); see also Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (a factfinder could
conclude that retaliatory placement in administrative confinement would "deter a person of
ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights" (citations omitted)). The
causation element requires a plaintiff to prove either: (1) an unusually suggestive temporal
proximity between the protected activity and the allegedly retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of
antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link. See Lauren W ex reI. Jean W v.

DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259,267 (3d Cir. 2007); Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494,
503-04 (3d Cir. 1997). "[O]nce a prisoner demonstrates that his exercise of a constitutional right
was a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged decision, the prison officials may still
prevail by proving that they would have made the same decision absent the protected conduct for

4

reasons reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest." Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330,
334 (3d Cir. 2001). When analyzing a retaliation claim, courts consider that the task of prison
administrators and staff is difficult, and that the decisions of prison officials require deference,
particularly where prison security is concerned. Id. at 334.
As discussed above, the court assumes, without deciding, that the letter is a form of
protected speech. Hence, Turner has met the first element of a retaliation claim. The allegations
in the complaint also successfully satisfy the second and third prongs of the prima facie test.
Turner's transfer to SHU may qualify as adverse treatment for the purposes of a retaliation claim.
See Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257, 270 (3d Cir. 2003) (where the prisoner's transfer to
administrative segregation qualified as adverse action). Additionally, Plaintiff has alleged
causation through the suggestive timing of the punishment he received subsequent to the letter he
wrote to the Commissioner.
However, a defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the
alleged wrongs to be liable and cannot be held responsible for a constitutional violation which he
or she neither participated in nor approved." Baraka v. "McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187,210 (3d Cir.
2007). "Personal involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of
actual knowledge and acquiescence." Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).
The Third Circuit has reiterated that a § 1983 claim cannot be premised upon a theory of
respondeat superior and, that in order to establish liability for deprivation of a constitutional
right, a party must show personal involvement by each defendant. Brito v. United States Dep't of
Justice, 392 F. App'x 11, 14 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-77);
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d at 1207).

5

Turner provides no specific facts with regard to any of the named defendants' personal
involvement as is required to state a claim for violations of his constitutional rights. The
complaint does point to any individual who allegedly retaliated against Turner. Instead, the
complaint refers to the letters Turner sent, and grievances he submitted, following the alleged
retaliatory conduct. 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). However, since it appears plausible that Turner may be able to articulate a

retaliation claim against the foregoing defendants (or name alternative defendants), he will be
given an opportunity to amend his pleading. See 0 'Dell v. United States Gov't, 256 F. App'x
444 (3d Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (leave to amend is proper where the plaintiffs claims do not
appear "patently meritless and beyond all hope of redemption").

IV. 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).
Turner will be given leave to amend the complaint.
An appropriate order will be entered.

_~--=-'..........._
_ '\...-=-S_ _, 2014

Wilmington, Delaware

6