Arnold v. Wall et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Re: 4 Amended Complaint filed by Michael Wayne Arnold. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 5/27/15. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
A.T. WALL, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
MICHAEL WAYNE ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,

C.A. No. 15-080 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff

Michael

Wayne

Arnold’s

Amended Complaint, in which he alleges violations of his rights
under the Fifth, 1 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States

Constitution.

Arnold

names

as

Defendants

A.T.

Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections
number

of

officials

Institutions.
capacities.

All

and

officers

Defendants

are

at

the

sued

Adult
in

Wall,
and a

Correctional

their

individual

Arnold seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as

well as compensatory damages.
The

Court

is

required

to

screen

the

Amended

Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

1

In the body of the Amended Complaint,
mention the Fifth Amendment. However, as he is
and his allegations are all against state
process claims would arise under the Fourteenth
event, not the Fifth.

Arnold does not
a state prisoner
actors, his due
Amendment in any

I.

Facts and Background
The gravamen of Arnold’s Amended Complaint is that he was

assaulted by a prison guard, Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Gass,
in the course of a midnight raid on the unit in which he was
housed.

According to Arnold, Director Wall, Warden Jankowski,

and “John Doe in Army Pants,” the leader of a private security
team

supervising

respond.

Arnold

the

raid,

states

observed

that

he

the

was

assault

injured,

and

did

denied

care, and left covered in feces for four days.

not

medical

He further

states that his efforts to file a criminal complaint against C/O
Gass

were

thwarted

by

Inspector

Wells

and

that

several

individuals conspired to cover up the assault. As a result of
the foregoing allegations, Arnold claims that he was subjected
to

cruel

and

unusual

punishment

and

that

his

right

to

due

process was violated.
On March 2, 2015, Arnold filed a pro se Complaint 2 (ECF
No. 1).
2015,

The Court issued an Order (ECF No. 3) on March 25,

directing

Arnold

to

file

an

Amended

Complaint

which

complied with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b)
and stating that it would then re-screen the Amended Complaint.

2

Arnold filed a previous case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
based on the incident described above. See Arnold v. Wall, C.A.
No. 15-031-ML (D.R.I. 2015).
That case was dismissed without
prejudice to being refiled as a civil rights action. See id.
2

The Court received Arnold’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) on
April 13, 2015.
II.

Discussion
A.

Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

Although Arnold has paid the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
directs courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners against a
governmental entity, officer, or employee of such entity and
dismiss the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the complaint
(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.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 3

The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure
to

state
3

a

claim

pursuant

to

§

1915A

is

identical

to

Section 1915A provides in relevant part:

(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before
docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.-- On review, the court
shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint-(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.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
3

the

standard used when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

See Chase

v. Chafee, No. CA 11–586ML, 2011 WL 6826504, at *2 (D.R.I. Dec.
9, 2011).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

In making this determination, the Court must accept a

plaintiff’s well-pled allegations as true and construe them in
the light most favorable to him.
75, 77 (1st

See Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d

Cir. 1999); Greater Providence MRI Ltd. P’ship v.

Med. Imaging Network of S. New England, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 2d
491,

493

(D.R.I.

1998).

Although

the

Court

must

review

pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally, Estelle v. Gamble,
429

U.S.

97,

106

(1976),

the

Court

need

not

credit

bald

assertions or unverifiable conclusions, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 67879.
B.

Amended Complaint

Arnold’s Amendment complies with the aforementioned Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

In addition, he provides details,

gives specific dates on which each event occurred, and states
which

Defendant

committed

each

violation

of

his

rights.

In

short, Arnold’s Amended Complaint contains “sufficient factual
4

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible

on

its

face,’”

Iqbal,

566

U.S.

at

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570), at this initial stage. 4

678

(quoting

Accordingly,

Arnold shall be allowed to proceed with his Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: May 27, 2015

4

In so concluding, the Court expresses no opinion as to the
merits of Arnold’s claims.
5