DEBERRY et al v. EASTON HOSPITAL et al
MEMORANDUM. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 5/22/17. 5/23/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF., 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN. (pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTON HOSPITAL, et al.
MAY 22, 2017
Plaintiff Crystal Deberry brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Easton
Hospital, Dr. Christopher Mann, “Easton Hospital Nurse Staff List of Deliver Floor and Night
Shift Also,” and “The List of the Nurses and Doctors of the Surgery Room on June 10th 8:17 AM
2014.” She seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will
grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss her complaint.
Plaintiff’s claims appear to relate to the birth of her son on June 10, 2014. Her claims are
based on the following factual allegations:
I was having a C-section and my body was resentined [sic] to the eperdorole [sic]
shot. So the[y] put me to sleep after I had my son they sent me back to prison and
I kept falling on the ground for some reason. Also there weren’t any cameras in
the nursery room where they had my son. Before they sent me back to prison Dr.
Christopher Man had retrants [sic] on my arms and feet during the c-section
immendetly [sic] when I was released they kept my son at Easton Hospital for the
last night and said cause they forgot to take a urine on me. I seen [sic] the Nurse
Denise cut my sons leg and her penky [sic] and I walked in there and she tried to
give my son Aids or Hep C
(Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff also alleges that the defendants “put a telecommunication device in [her]
stomach that almost killed [her].” (Id. at 2.) She seeks sixty million dollars in damages for the
alleged violation of her and her son’s rights, and adds that “everyone in town knows that [the
defendants] abused [her] son and he came home with two blood vessles [sic] in his eyes.” (Id. at
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that
she cannot afford to pay the fees to commence this civil action. 1 Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) require the Court to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or fails to
state a claim.
A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). It is legally baseless if “based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory,” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995), and
factually baseless “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). “[M]ere conclusory statements do not
suffice.” Id. Additionally, the Court may dismiss claims based on an affirmative defense if the
affirmative defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d
1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006); cf. Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 459 (3d Cir. 2013), abrogated
on other grounds by, Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). As plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the Court construes her allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d
333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff’s allegations are confusing and at times rise to the level of delusional. Reading
As plaintiff is a prisoner, she will still be obligated to pay the fees in installments in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
the complaint as a whole, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s allegations are primarily based on
paranoid, irrational thoughts. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint as factually
In any event, plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of
limitations applies to plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524; Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007). The limitations period begins to run from the time “the plaintiff knew
or should have known of the injury upon which [her] action is based.” Sameric Corp. of Del.,
Inc. v. City of Phila., 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998). The events giving rise to plaintiff’s
claims took place in June of 2014, but she did not file this case until April 20, 2017—more than
two years after she knew or should have known of the basis for her claims. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff will not
be given leave to amend because amendment would be futile. An appropriate order follows,
which shall be docketed separately.
Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner’s complaint is considered filed at the time he or
she hands it over to prison authorities for forwarding to the Court. See Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The complaint reflects that plaintiff handed her complaint to prison
authorities on April 20, 2017.
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?