Brown v. Delaware Department of Correction et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/22/2016. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DEVON ANTHONY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
: Civil Action No. 16-980-RGA
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE, et al.,
Defendants.
Devon Anthony Brown, Wilmington, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Zt,
2016
November
Wilmington, Delaware
A~1;-~
Plaintiff Devon Anthony Brown filed this action on October 21, 2016. He appears
prose and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4). On October
31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to name the proper defendants.
(D.I. 5). The Court will grant the motion. The Court proceeds to review and screen the
complaint and its amendment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (See D.I. 1).
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff commenced this suit against Defendants State of Delaware (named in
the case caption), Delaware Department of Correction, Superior Court of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County, Delaware Office of the Public Defender, and
Delaware State Police. Plaintiff alleges that "over the past twenty years State of
Delaware criminal histories have included criminal convictions that in reality do not exist"
(D.I. 2 at 4), and that criminal histories include false entries. Plaintiff alleges that, on
numerous occasions, the State of Delaware (including the Delaware Department of
Correction, the Office of the Public Defender, Delaware State Police, and Delaware
Supreme Court) was made aware of the problem.
Plaintiff alleges that the State's refusal to address and to correct false entries in
criminal histories and court dockets has caused him substantial hardship and caused
him to receive harsher penalties and longer prison sentences. In addition, the
fraudulent entries contributed to 30 police stops over a 15-year period and made it
difficult to, if not impossible, for Plaintiff to find and maintain employment. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages.
1
DISCUSSION
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) 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). 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).
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 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) 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, 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).
2
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.
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, 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.
Defendants include the State of Delaware and its agencies or departments. The
Department of Correction, the Office of the Public Defender, and the State Police are
agencies 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). In
addition, the Superior Court is a state entity and, thus, also immune from suit. See
3
Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa. 426 F.3d 233, 239-40 (3d Cir. 2005) (concluding
Pennsylvania's First Judicial District is a state entity entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity). "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).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint as Defendants are immune from
suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The Court finds amendment futile.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will: (1) grant Plaintiffs motion to amend (D.I.
5); and (2) dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) as
Defendants are immune from suit.
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?