McNeill v. Snow et al.
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 12/14/2018. (lak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DALE KEVIN MCNEILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 16-757-CFC
DONALD SNOW, et al. ,
Defendants.
Dale Kevin McNeil!, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware;
Pro Se Plaintiff.
Ryan Patrick Connell, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Warden Steven Wesley.
Dana Spring Monzo, Esquire, and Karine Sarkisian, Esquire, White and Williams,
Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Defendant Connections Community Support
Programs, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
lY
,
December
2018
Wilmington, belaware
CONNOLLY, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Dale Kevin McNeil! ("Plaintiff"), an inmate at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution ("HRYCI") in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds prose and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (D.I . 6) The Court screened the complaint on December 2, 2016 and
identified cognizable and non-frivolous clams. (See D.I. 8) Defendant Connections
Community Support Programs, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Connections") moves for dismissal
and Plaintiff opposes. (D.I. 28, 30, 32) Briefing on the matter is complete.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate on May 17, 2015 and rushed to the
hospital for treatment. (D.I. 2 at 5) He alleges that when he returned from the hospital
instructions for his care were given to the HRYCI medical department. (Id. at 7)
Plaintiff was to receive continuing care for an ear injury and follow-up care for a
concussion he sustained as a result of the assault. He alleges he has not received the
required care and had to submit medical grievances. (Id.)
Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (D.I. 28)
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
In reviewing a motion to dismiss filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court
must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Because Plaintiff
proceeds prose, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, "however
1
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. A court may consider the pleadings,
public record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint, and documents incorporated
into the complaint by reference. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makar Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S.
308, 322 (2007). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion maybe granted only if, accepting the wellpleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable
to the complainant, a court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of
entitlement to relief." Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
"Though 'detailed factual allegations' are not required, a complaint must do more
than simply provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action."' Davis v. Abington Mem'I Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court is "not required to credit bald assertions
or legal conclusions improperly alleged in the complaint." In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props.,
Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198,216 (3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed,
however, "for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted."
Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346, 346 (2014).
A complainant must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has "substantive
plausibility." Id. at 347. That plausibility must be found on the face of the complaint.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
[complainant] pleads factual content that allows th~ court to draw the reasonable
inference that the [accused] is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Deciding whether
2
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. at 679.
Ill.
DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state an
Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference.
It also contends that dismissal is
appropriate because Plaintiff does not allege that Connections maintained a policy,
custom, or practice that resulted in Plaintiff's alleged harm.
The legal standard when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions is identical to the
standard used when screening a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii).
See 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)(8)).
The Court previously reviewed Plaintiff's allegations and found that he stated what
appear to be cognizable and non-frivolous claims. (See D.I. 8) Nothing has changed
since the Court's ruling.
The Court has revisited Plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed them as it must,
and finds that Plaintiff adequately raises medical needs claims. In order to hold
Connections liable, Plaintiff must allege a policy or custom that demonstrates such
deliberate indifference. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F .2d 1099, 111 O (3d Cir. 1989).
"Custom, ... can be proven by showing that a given course of conduct, although not
specifically endorsed or authorized by law, is so well-settled and permanent as virtually
to constitute law." Miller v. Correctional Med. Sys., Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1126, 1132 (D.
3
Del. 1992) (alteration in original) (citing Andrews v. City of Philadelphia , 895 F.2d 1469,
1480 (3d Cir. 1990); Fletcher v. O'Donnell, 867 F.2d 791 , 793-94 (3d Cir. 1989)).
Plaintiff's allegations are that care was delayed or denied by Connections
personnel to the extent that he was required to submit medical grievances. Construed
liberally, the alleged conduct although not specifically endorsed or authorized, could be
so well-settled and permanent to constitute a Connections policy, custom, or practice.
Plaintiff is not required to recite the specific text or official policy. He must only place
Defendant on notice as to its alleged improper conduct and the policy in place that
created such conduct. While discovery may show that Connections acted properly, at
this early stage of the litigation, Plaintiff has pied sufficient facts to proceed against it.
Therefore, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss. (D.I . 28)
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above discussion, the Court will deny Defendant's motion to
dismiss. (D.I . 28)
An appropriate order will be entered.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?