MARTIN v. GREAVES et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 1/19/16. 1/20/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

RUSSELL MARTIN
v.

NO. 16-0028

C/O GREAVES, et al.

MEMORANDUM
JANUARY

TUCKER, Ch. J.

Plaintiff has filed a oro se 42 U.S.C.

' 2016
§

1983 civil

rights lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia
prison system, the Commissioner of the Philadelphia prisons, and
the Warden and a correctional officer at the Philadelphia House
of Correction.

He alleges that because there was no ladder to

allow him to get in and out of his bed, he fell while trying to
climb onto the top bunk bed in his cell at the House of
Correction, and injured his neck, back, head and elbow.
With this action, plaintiff submitted a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.

As it appears he is unable to pay the

cost of commencing this action, leave to proceed in f orma
pauperis is granted.

However, for the reasons which follow, this

action will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

1915{e)

(2) (B) {i).

I.

DISCUSSION

In order to bring suit under

§

1983, plaintiff must

allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him
of his constitutional rights.
(1988).

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42

There are no allegations in the complaint that would

allow this Court to find that the defendants have violated

plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Even assuming arguendo that

prison officials were negligent because the bunk bed did not have
a ladder, negligent conduct which causes unintended injury to an
inmate does not amount to a constitutional violation.

See

Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986); Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986).

Furthermore, plaintiff

received medical treatment for his injuries, and he was given
indefinite bottom bunk status after his fall.

II. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has advanced an "indisputably meritless legal
theory."

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327

(1989).

Accordingly, dismissal of this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) (2) (B) (i) is appropriate.
complaint follows.

An order dismissing this