Wingster v. Dekalb County Mental Health et al

Filing 3

ORDER AND OPINION DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS pursuant to 28 USC 1915A, granting leave to proceed in form pauperis for the purpose of dismissal only. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 4/2/10. (dr)

FILED IN CHAMBERS THOMAS W . THRASH JI U . S, D.C . Atlanta

APR

5 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES DI STRICT COURT,)AMES N . HA EN, Clerk F OR TH E NORTHERN DI ST RI CT OF GEOROIA Deputy C ATLANT A DI VI SI O N L ANELLETTA NAY WINGSTER, GDC NO . 476270, Plaintiff, V. DEKALB COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH ; DR. BRICK HOUSE ; and KATIE KALE, Defendants . : : CIVIL ACTION NO. : : 1 :10-CV-0$77-TWT .. :: : : PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS . . 42 U.S.C. § 198 3

ORDE R AND OPINION PlaintiffLanelletta Nay Wingster, presently confined in the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia, has filed the instant fro se civil rights
action . (Doc . 1) . The matter is now before the Court for a 28 U .S .C . § 1915A

frivolity determination and on Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma nau l2 eris (Doc . 2). For the purpose of dismissal only, Plaintiff is hereby GRANTE D leave to proceed in forma ap upe_ris.
I. The Standard of Review for Screening Prisoner Civil Rights Actions Pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915A(a), a federal court is required to screen "as soon

as practicable" a prisoner complaint "which seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity ." Section 1915A(b) requires a federal

AO 72A (Rev-8182)

court to dismiss a prisoner complaint that either : (1) is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" ; or (2) "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." To state a claim for relief under 42 U .S .C . § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that an act or omission committed by a person acting under color of state law deprived him
of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States . Hate v. Tallgpaosa Countv, 50 F .3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir . 1995) . If a litigant cannot satisfy these requirements, or fails to provide factual allegations in support of
the claims, then the complaint is subject to dismissal, pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915A .

See Bell Atlantic Corp . v. TwomblX, 550 U .S . 544, 555-56 (2007) (the "complaint must be dismissed" when a plaintiff fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," not merely "conceivable") . See also Ashcroft v . I-qbal, U.S . 129 S .Ct . 1937, 1951-53 (2009) (holding that Twombly "expounded the pleading standard for all civil actions," to wit, conclusory allegations that "amount to nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
constitutional . claim" are "not entitled to be assumed true," and, to escape

dismissal, complaint must allege facts sufficient to move claims "across the line from
conceivable to plausible") ; Papasan v. Allain, 478 U .S . 265, 286 (1986) (the court 2

AO 72A ( Rev . 81$ 2 )

accepts as true the plaintiff s factual contentions, not his or her legal conclusions that

are couched as factual allegations) . II. Discussion
Plaintiff brings this action against DeKalb County Mental Health, Dr . Brick House, and Katie Kale . (Doe . 1 at 1, 3) . The entirety of Plaintiff's statement of claim

reads as follows :
Holding medical records from Dr . Wazo and Dr. Patel . Refusing to give me medication as needed, Risperal 4 mg [and] 50 mg Bendely . I could of hurt someone once release . 50 thousand dollar .

( Id ¶ I V) . .
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the named defendants because he "fails to allege facts that associate [the defendants] with [the alleged] violation ." Douglas v . Yates, 535 F .3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir . 2008). Moreover, Plaintiff has not clearly stated a claim for relief under 42 U .S .C . § 1983 because he has not alleged sufficient facts to show that a state actor deprived him of a constitutional right . See Hale, 50 F .3d at 1582 . This Court cannot read into a complaint non-alleged facts . Beck v . Interstate Brands Corp ., 953 F .2d 1275, 1276 {11th Cir . 1992) .

3

AO 72A ( Rev .8/82)

III .

Conclusion B ased on the foregoing, IT IS HERE BY ORDER E D that the instant fro se

civil rights action (Doc . 1 ) is DISMI SS ED for failure to state a claim .

IT I S SO ORDERED this ~_ day of Ct~1a~w~

, 2010 .

THOMAS W. THRASH, JR . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

AO 72A (Rev .8/82)