Ifill v. Weiler

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 09/23/2014. (mas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AHMED B. IFILL,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

) Civ. Action No. 14-605-GMS

V.

TIMOTHY J. WEILER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Ahmed B. Ifill ("Ifill"), a pretrial detainee at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution ("HRYCI"), Wilmington, Delaware, filed this filed this lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 1.) He appears prose and was granted permission to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1915. (D .1. 7.) The court now proceeds to review and
screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and§ 1915A(b)(l).
I. BACKGROUND

Ifill complains that he has not been effectively represented by the defendant public
defender Timothy J. Weiler ("Weiler") in his pending criminal matters. Ifill asks the court to
remove Weiler from the case.
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 Ifill 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)(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. 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

2

must grant Ifill leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.

See Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 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 ofthe
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 ofthe 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." !d.

III. DISCUSSION
Public defender Weiler is the sole defendant. 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).

3

Hence, the claim against Weiler fails as a matter of law. It 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)(l).

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§ 1915A(b)(1). Amendment of the claim would be futile. See

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

~tG'l)

,2014
Wilming n, Delaware

4