Cruz v. Sargeant Boise et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 1/26/15. (etg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ALEJANDRO CRUZ,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.
SARGEANT BOISE, et al.,
Defendants.

) Civ. No.14-1318-SLR
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM

1. Introduction. Plaintiff Alejandro Cruz ("plaintiff'), an inmate at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. He filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming violations of his constitutional rights. 1 (D.I. 3)
2. Standard of Review. 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

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).
1

complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. 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." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations
omitted).
3. 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), 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).
4. 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 Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscherv. 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 of§§ 1915 and 1915A, the court must grant plaintiff 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).
5. 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,

2

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 wellpleaded 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.
6. Discussion. Plaintiff complains of several medical problems. He indicates
that he has had back problems since 2011. His right leg goes to sleep after walking for
five to ten minutes and he has lower back pain. An MRI was performed in June 2013
with abnormal results. While not clear, it seems that the MRI was of plaintiffs right leg.
He was seen by an outside physician and physical therapy was ordered. Plaintiff
alleges that it did not work and he requested another MRI.
7. In June 2014, plaintiff told an officer that he had injured his elbow. He was
denied medical treatment on August 15, 2014, and received treatment in September
2014. Testing revealed normal results. Plaintiff indicated that he was in pain and asked
for an MRI. Plaintiff indicates that he has pain every time he moves. Plaintiff seeks
medical attention.

3

8. Discussion. The complaint names as defendants Sargeant Boise ("Boise"),
Corp. Ms. Chaffer ("Chaffer"), and Nurse Bob ("Bob"). The complaint, however,
contains no allegations directed towards any of the defendants. 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) (citing Boykins v.
Ambridge Area Sch. Dist., 621 F.2d 75, 80 (3d Cir. 1980); Hall v. Pennsylvania State
Police, 570 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 1978)). In the present case, plaintiff fails to associate

any of his allegations with defendants. Plaintiff provides no facts to support a claim
against them, and it is clear the claims are facially insufficient. As a result, the
complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact and will be dismissed. However,
since it is not inconceivable that plaintiff may be able to articulate a claim against
defendants (or 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. 2007)
(unpublished) (leave to amend is proper where the plaintiffs claims do not appear
"patently meritless and beyond all hope of redemption").
9. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the 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). Plaintiff will be given leave to file
an amended complaint. A separate order shall issue.

Date: January~. 2015

4