Barr v. Welch et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 01/26/2015. (etg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES A. BARR,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 14-983-RGA

v.

OSAIGBOKAN EMA IGBINEDION,
et al.,
Defendants.

James A. Barr, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware.
Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ab

January
'2015
Wilmington, Delaware

Pro Se

ANDRlldidi:t~
Plaintiff James A. Barr, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,
Smyrna, Delaware,,filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

He appears prose

(D.I. 4). The Court

reviewed and screened the original Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) and
§ 1915A(a), dismissed it, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend.

(See D.I. 7, 8).

Plaintiff

filed an Amended Complaint on December 2, 2014.
Plaintiff is completely deaf in his left ear and he attempts to raise claims
regarding his efforts to obtain a hearing aid.

This Court's November 6, 2014

Memorandum and Order details Plaintiff's claims.

(See D.I. 7, 8).

The Court

dismissed the original Complaint, in part, because Plaintiff failed to associate any of his
allegations with the defendants named in the original Complaint.
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening
provisions of 28 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.

See Phillips v. County of

Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93

(2007).

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."

Id. 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 theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional"
factual scenario.

Neitzke, 490 U.S. 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),
A civil rights complaint must state the conduct, time, place, and persons
responsible for the alleged civil rights violations.

Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353

(3d Cir. 2005); Hall v. Pennsylvania State Police, 570 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 1978)). As in
the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint does not indicate when, where, or
specifically who allegedly violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

In the Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff lists a number of Defendants but instead of identifying the actions
taken by each defendant or when the actions occurred, the Amended Complaint refers
to unnamed members of the "medical staff," "the medical vendor regional medical
director," and a "doctor." The Amended Complaint states, generally, that "all those
named in suit played a part in denying me my rights by denying me a hearing aid." The
Amended Complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal.

2

It

is frivolous and will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and§
1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend to cure his pleading defects, yet
he failed to do so.

Because Plaintiff made no attempt to remedy the defects in his

complaint, despite notice and his familiarity with the pleading requirements, granting him
an opportunity to amend would be futile.

Jones v. Camden City Bd. of Educ., 499 F.

App'x 127, 129 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002) and Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
For the above reasons, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and§ 1915A(b)(1).
Since the Court has already given Plaintiff one opportunity to amend the
complaint, and Plaintiff's amended complaint corrected none of the identified
deficiencies of the original complaint, the Court finds that amendment is futile.
An appropriate order will be entered.

3