Davis v. AT Wall
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing 1 the Complaint; finding as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 3/13/12. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
A.T. WALL, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
JOSHUA ALAN DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.A. No. 11-465-S
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
Before this Court is a Complaint (ECF No. 1) (the
“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Joshua Alan Davis, pro se,
an
inmate
“ACI”)
in
at
the
Cranston,
Adult
Correctional
Rhode
Island,
Institutions
seeking
(the
declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and related statutes.
This Court has screened the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it
fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, for
the reasons discussed below.1
I.
The Complaint
In
his
Complaint,
Plaintiff
make
three
claims:
(1)
that, on certain specified dates between July 2006 and July
1
Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP application”) (ECF No. 2), which is
addressed infra.
2011, he was unjustly disciplined by the disciplinary board
at the ACI’s High-Security Center (“HSC”), in violation of
his due process rights; (2) that the HSC failed to comply
with
Rhode
Island
Department
of
Corrections
(“RIDOC”)
policy concerning governing recreation; and (3) that he was
assaulted
Officer
by
John
another
Doe
prisoner
left
the
in
block
December
2009,
unmanned.”
“when
The
sole
defendants named are Ashbel T. Wall, Director of the RIDOC,
and
“John
Doe,
RIDOC
Correctional
Officer
in
Maximum
Security” at the ACI.
For relief, Plaintiff requests that his disciplinary
record be expunged and he be awarded damages for time spent
in
segregation
as
a
result
of
the
disciplinary
board's
illegal actions; that this Court order the RIDOC to comply
with its own policy regarding recreation; and that he be
awarded damages for the assault.
II.
Discussion
A.
Screening under § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A
In connection with proceedings in forma pauperis, §
1915(e)(2) instructs the Court to dismiss a case at any
time if the Court determines that the action, inter alia,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
28
Similarly, § 1915A directs courts to
screen complaints filed by prisoners against a governmental
2
entity, officer, or employee, and to dismiss the complaint,
or any portion thereof, for reasons identical to those set
forth in § 1915(e)(2).
The
legal
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
standard
for
dismissing
a
complaint
for
failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) and/or
§ 1915A is identical to the legal standard used when ruling
on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
See Pelumi v. Landry, C.A. Nos.
08-084 ML, 08-085 ML, 08-086 ML, 08-087 ML, 08-105 ML, 08106 ML, 08-107 ML, 2008 WL 2660968, at *2 (D.R.I. June 30,
2008); see also Feeney v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 464 F.3d
158,
161
n.3
(1st
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
Cir.
authorizes
2006)
a
(noting
district
that
court,
sua
sponte, to dismiss a pro se IFP complaint if the court
determines that it fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted).
In making this determination, the Court
must accept a plaintiff’s allegations as true and construe
them
in
Although
the
light
the
Court
most
must
favorable
review
to
pleadings
the
of
plaintiff.
a
pro
se
plaintiff liberally, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976),
the
Court
need
unverifiable conclusions.
not
credit
dismiss,
a
complaint
assertions
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009).
to
bald
must
contain
or
556 U.S.
“To survive a motion
sufficient
factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
3
is plausible on its face.’”
Id. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
B.
Review of Claims
In its present form, the instant Complaint fails to
state a claim for relief as to any of its three asserted
claims.2
As
to
the
first
claim,
Plaintiff
alleges
unspecified violations of his due process rights by the HSC
disciplinary
board
on
certain
dates:
July
21,
2006;
September 21, 2006; January 18, 2007; September 5, 2007;
February 9, 2009; February 19, 2010; and July 19, 2011.
He
does not describe the nature of those alleged violations or
the
specific
specify
actions.
the
actions
taken
individuals
Plaintiff’s
by
the
responsible
claims
board,
for
concerning
nor
does
taking
the
he
those
incidents
occurring in 2006 and 2007 are barred by the pertinent
Rhode Island statute of limitations, as they occurred more
than three years prior to the filing of his Complaint.
See
R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b); Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 40
(1st Cir. 1991) (stating that § 1983 civil rights claims
2
Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not expressly invoked in
the Complaint, this Court construes all of his claims as
brought under that provision.
See Edwards v. City of New
York, No. 10-CV-01047, 2011 WL 5024721, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
Oct. 18, 2011) (liberally construing complaint to assert §
1983 claims).
4
are governed by statute of limitations for personal injury
actions in state where federal court is located); Doctor v.
Wall, 143 F. Supp. 2d 203, 210 (D.R.I. 2001) (noting that
prisoner
§
1983
actions
are
governed
by
three-year
limitations period set forth in § 9-1-14) (adopting Report
and Recommendation by Hagopian, M.J.).
As to the alleged violations on the remaining dates,
given the lack of any detail concerning those incidents,
this Court is unable to determine whether it is viable.
Moreover, Plaintiff does not state what the disciplinary
board did and how his rights were violated.
In addition,
there are no allegations of specific actions by Defendant
Wall, and Wall has no vicarious liability in his capacity
as director of RIDOC.
F.3d
31,
49
(1st
See Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590
Cir.
2009)
(stating
that,
although
supervisory officials may be liable on the basis of their
own acts or omissions, such officials “may not be held
liable
for
the
unconstitutional
conduct
of
their
subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior” (citing
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948)).
No other defendants are named
in connection with this claim.
As such, this claim is
deficient on its face.
Plaintiff's
second
claim,
which
alleges
the
HSC’s
noncompliance with “DOC Policy governing Recreation," is
5
likewise devoid of any details.
It fails to describe the
recreation policy in question, the nature of the board’s
alleged noncompliance, the specific individuals involved,
and
how
Plaintiff
noncompliance.
It
was
is
specifically
axiomatic
that
harmed
the
“plaintiff
a
by
must
allege sufficient facts to show that he has a plausible
entitlement to relief.”
Sanchez, 590 F.3d at 41 (citing
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949).
Plaintiff's
another
inmate
security
unit
final
upon
claim,
being
from
the
that
he
transferred
HSC
protective
December 2009, also falls short.
was
to
assaulted
ACI’s
custody
by
maximumunit
in
He fails to describe the
nature of the assault, the identity of either the inmate or
the
correctional
officer
who
allegedly
left
Plaintiff’s
cell block unguarded, or what, if any, injuries he suffered
as
a
result
of
the
assault.
insufficient to state a claim.
In
short,
Plaintiff
As
such,
this
claim
is
See id.
has
failed
to
provide
the
requisite detail as to any of his three claims to permit
them to go forward, nor has he named any proper defendants.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
shortcomings,
Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.
6
the
instant
III. Conclusion
Because there are no properly-named defendants and the
allegations in the Complaint fail to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as against all
Defendants.
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
in this matter is likewise DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: March 13, 2012
7
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?