Stokes v. Payson et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 6/3/2024. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TERRANCE J.M. STOKES,
Plaintiff,

v.

: Civ. No. 23-1324-CFC

LT. PAYSON, et al.,
Defendants.

Terrance J.M. Stokes, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware.
Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

June 3, 2024
Wilmington, Delaware

coat-Li.~Judge:
I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Terrance J.M. Stokes, an inmate confined at James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center (JTVCC) in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. His opening filing came in the form of a "Restraining Order
Request," which the Court construes as a Complaint. (D.1. 1) Plaintiff appears pro

se and has been granted leave to proceed informa pauperis. (D.I. 6) The Court
proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)
and§ 1915A(a).

II.

BACKGROUND

In his two-page Complaint Plaintiff names twelve JTVCC officials as
Defendants and makes several allegations about his treatment in prison, but he
does not attribute the alleged conduct to any individual Defendant. For relief, he
requests that he be moved to a "secure location where [he] would be treated fairly,"
or to "order an outside investigation." (D.1. 1 at 2)

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the
screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(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) (quotation marks omitted); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (informa pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (civil actions
filed by prisoners seeking redress from governmental entities or government
officers and employees). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff.

See Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F .3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). 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. 89, 94 (2007).
A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See

Dooley v. Wetzel, 951 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed
frivolous only where it relies on an '"indisputably meritless legal theory' or a
'clearly baseless' or 'fantastic or delusional' factual scenario."' Id.
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and§ 1915A(b)(l) 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). 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, however, the Court must grant Plaintiff leave to
2

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, 574 U.S. 10, 12
(2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect
statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11.
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). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint "show"
entitlement 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

IV.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any Defendant because he has

failed to allege any Defendant's personal involvement in the alleged conduct. See

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,325 (1981)
(holding that liability in a § 1983 action must be based on personal involvement,
not respondeat superior); Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347,353 (3d Cir. 2005)
(holding that personal involvement may be "shown through allegations of personal
direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence"). Plaintiff will be given leave
to file an amended complaint.

V.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
1915 A(b)( 1).
The Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.

4