Bryant v. HRYCI Mental Health Department

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the Complaint (D.I. 2 ). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/22/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JONATHAN BRYANT,
Plaintiff,

v.

: Civ. No. 16-613-RGA

HRYCI MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

Jonathan Bryant, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware,
Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

~016

November
Wilmington, Delaware

~ui~
Plaintiff Jonathan Bryant, an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
appears prose and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4). The
Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint (D.I. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and§ 1915A(a).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has been incarcerated for over eight years. He alleges that he has been
administered forced medication during three different time frames: November 2012
through December 2012; March 2013 through February 2015; and June 2016 to the
present. Plaintiff submitted a grievance. He alleges that, in January 2016, the mental
health director made a determination that Plaintiff's mental health condition did not
warrant taking the medication. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from numerous side
effects as a result of the medication. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and
injunctive relief.
SCREENING OF 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 a/so 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. 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 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)(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).
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. 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 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 At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive

2

plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A
complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory
supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 346.
A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take
note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations
that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and
then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v.
Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780,787 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). 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.
The HRYCI Mental Health Department is the only named defendant. It falls
under the umbrella of the Delaware Department of Correction, an agency of the State of
Delaware. The Eleventh Amendment protects states and their agencies and
departments from suit in federal court regardless of the kind of relief sought. Pennhurst
State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). "Absent a state's
consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the
state as a defendant." Laskaris v. Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1981) (citing
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)). Delaware has not waived its immunity from
suit in federal court; although Congress can abrogate a state's sovereign immunity, it
did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Brooks-McCollum v.

3

Delaware, 213 F. App'x 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2007). In addition, dismissal is proper because

the HRYCI Mental Health Department is not a person for purposes of§ 1983. See Will
v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Calhoun v. Young, 288 F.

App'x 47 (3d Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and§ 1915A(b)(2) as its sole defendant is immune from suit.
However, since it appears plausible that Plaintiff may be able to articulate a claim
against 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) (leave to amend is

proper where the plaintiff's claims do not appear "patently meritless and beyond all
hope of redemption").
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will: (1) dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and§ 1915A(b)(2); and (2) give Plaintiff leave to amend.
An appropriate order will be entered.

4