Henderson v. Department of Corrections, Sussex Correctional Institutional et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 11/15/2016. (cna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MARCUS ELTON HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) Civ. No. 16-805-SLR
)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM
1. Introduction. Plaintiff Marcus Elton Henderson ("plaintiff"), an inmate at the
Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI"), Georgetown, Delaware, proceeds pro se and
has been granted in forma pauperis status. He filed this complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his constitutional rights. 1 (0.1. 1)
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)(8) 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

1When 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).

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 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) 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 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)

(holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took an inmate's pen and refused to
give it back).
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

2

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).

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,
550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has
substantive 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.
6. 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-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.

3

7. Discussion. Plaintiff broke his hand on May 30, 2016. He was taken to the
hospital and received treatment. On June 16, 2016, he submitted a sick call slip
complaining about pain and getting the hand "fixed" but nothing was done. He was
seen on July 6,2016 by Dr. Sop a ("Dr. Sopa") of Lewes Orthopedics who "did not
properly observe" him and "rushed" him out of the office. (0.1. 1 at 5)
8. In the meantime, plaintiff submitted a grievance on June 18, 2016
complaining about the lack of medical treatment. The grievance was upheld on July 19,
2016. Since that time, plaintiff has submitted numerous sick call slips, but nothing has
been done. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as a second
medical opinion.
9. Eleventh Amendment. One of the named defendants is the Department of
Correction, Sussex Correctional Institution. 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, dismissal is proper because the SCI is

4

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) (unpublished).
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the claims against the SCI pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(8)(iii) and § 1915A(b)(2) as it is immune from suit.
10. State Actor. Plaintiff raises a § 1983 claim against Dr. Sopa who treated
plaintiff in June of this year. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff

must allege "the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)
(citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986». To act under "color of state law" a

defendant must be "clothed with the authority of state law." West, 487 U.S. at 49.
Dr. Sopa is a private individual who provided plaintiff medical treatment at Lewes
Orthopedics. She is not "clothed with the authority of state law." See Reichley v.
Pennsylvania Oep't of Agric., 427 F.3d 236, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2005); Biener v.
Calia, 361 F.3d 206, 216-17 (3d. Cir. 2004). Therefore, the § 1983 claims
against her will be dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(8)(i) and § 1915(A)(b)(1).
11. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will: (1) dismiss Department
of Correction, Sussex Correctional Institution and Dr. Sopa and the claims against them
as frivolous and based upon immunity from suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i),

5

(iii) and § 1915A(b)(1), (2); and (2) allow plaintiff to proceed with his Eighth Amendment
claim against Connections LLC. A separate order shall issue.

Dated: November

JL, 2016

6