Trammell v. Sussex Correctional Institution

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 12/2/16. (sar)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NICHOLAS KENNETH TRAMMELL,
Plaintiff,

v.
SUSSEX CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 16-736-GMS
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM

The plaintiff, Nicholas Kenneth Trammell ("Trammell"), an inmate at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit on August 22, 2016. (D.1. 3.)
He appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 5.) The court proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and§ 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND

Trammell sues the defendant Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI") for unemployment
benefits and alleging that he was housed in unusual prison conditions with asbestos in vents,
peeling paint, and an inability to spend cash on food because commissary is only allowed once a
week. He also refers to a write-up he received, as well as what appear to be a number of crimes
he was charged with. Trammell seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a permit to
carry a concealed weapon, record deals with various record companies, his image on the cover of
several magazines, parts on reality television shows, endorsement deals with numerous
companies, and dismissal of all criminal charges, among other requests.

II. STAND ARD OF REVIEW

A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions
of28 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) (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 pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAllegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because
Trammell 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).
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 Rule

2

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 Trammell 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 plausibility. See

Johnson v. City ofShelby, _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.
Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, 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, the court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Const. 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-

3

specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense." Id

III. DISCUSSION
Trammell has named a defendant who is immune from suit. The SCI 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.

Delaware, 213 F. App'x 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2007) (unpublished). In addition, after thoroughly
reviewing the complaint and applicable law, the court draws on its judicial experience and
common sense and concludes that the claims raised by Trammell are frivolous. Therefore, the
court will dismiss the complaint as frivolous and based upon the SCI's immunity from suit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (iii) and 1915A(b)(l), (2).
Finally, to the extent Trammell attempts to raise supplemental state claims, because the
complaint fails to state federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any
supplemental state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d
301, 309 (3d Cir. 2003).

4

IV. CONCLUSION
The court will: (1) dismiss the complaint as legally frivolous and based upon the
defendant's immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (iii) and§ 1915A(b)(l), (2);
(2) dismiss all pending motions as moot (D.I. 7, 8, 9); and (3) decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In light of the nature of Trammell's claims, the court
finds that amendment would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004);
Grayson, 293 F.3d at 111; Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976).

An appropriate order will be entered.

-~........:==-_IJ.. _ _, 2016
_
Wilmington, Delaware

5