Morris v. James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/24/18. (sar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TYRONE J. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
: Civil Action No. 18-252-RGA
V.
JAMES T. VAUGHN CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
Defendant.
Tyrone J. Morris, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware.
Pro Se Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Julyyf', 2018
Wilmington, Delaware
fJ_l aAAJ/ ~ , ~ - AN1~~,vu~~istrict Judge:
Plaintiff Tyrone J. Morris, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
in Smyrna, Delaware, wrote a letter to Judge Robinson, which was treated as an action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (D.I. 1). He appears prose and has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 7). The Court screens and reviews the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(a).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he has a severe skin disease and he is not receiving proper
medical treatment. He alleges that he has sores all over various parts of his body. He
alleges that he is suffering a great deal of pain and has mental anguish. He does not
name any individual defendants, and the file considers the defendant to be the James
T. Vaughn Correctional Center. 2
SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
A federal court may properly c ismiss 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 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
1
When bringing a§ 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived
him of a federal right, and the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of
state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
2
He filed suit against various defendants on related medical issues in 2016, and that
suit was dismissed in 2016. Morris v. Pierce, No. 16-261-RGA.
1
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 prose plaintiff. Phillips v. County of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Ci1'. 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.
An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 3~!5 (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" O' a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional"
factual scenario. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmi/1, 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 (~~009); Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
2
(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.
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
Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780,787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when
the facts in the complaint "show" tha1 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.
DISCUSSION
The VCC 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 & h'osp. 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
3
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). In addition,
dismissal is proper because the VCC 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).
The Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)
and§ 1915A(b)(2) as the VCC is immune from suit. 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 pleadin~1- 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 dismiss the complaint pursuant to U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and § 1915A(b)(2) based upon Defendant's immunity from suit.
Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint.
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?