Wilson v. Nelson et al, No. 1:2019cv00835 - Document 9 (D. Del. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/11/2019. (myr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. Nelson et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MALIK JARON WILSON , Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 19-835-RGA V. NELSON, et al. , Defendants. Malik Jaron Wilson, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna , Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION July/ ( ,2019 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com A ~ t ~ i s t r i c t Judge: Plaintiff Malik Jaron Wilson , an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware , filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (0.1. 3) . Plaintiff appears prose and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (0 .1. 5). The Court screens and reviews the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he told Defendants Correctional Officers Nelson, J. Wooleyhan , and Sergeant McKenna that he and inmate Marion Burroughs had conflict in the past and Plaintiff feared for his life. On April 17, 2019 , and days later after nothing was done, Plaintiff was attacked by Burroughs and two other inmates. Plaintiff was punched and both eyes were blackened. He was sent to "the hole" for being the cause of the fight. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and§ 1915A(b) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted , or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio , 726 F.3d 448 , 452 (3d Cir. 2013) . See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 1 When bringing a § 1983 claim , a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 , 48 (1988). 1 defendant). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 , 229 (3d Cir. 2008) ; Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 , 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds prose, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded , must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 . An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. " Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319 , 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1 ), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Neitzke , 490 U.S. at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772 , 774 (3d Cir. 1989). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236 , 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§1915 and 1915A, the Court must grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile . See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ; Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive 2 plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted . See id. at 10. A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth ; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 ,787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. DISCUSSION Named as a defendant is the Delaware Department of Correction, an agency of the State of Delaware . The Eleventh Amendment protects states and their agencies and departments from suit in federal court regardless of the kind of relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89 , 100 (1984). "Absent a state's consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the state as a defendant." Laskaris v. Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23 , 25 (3d Cir. 1981 ). Delaware has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court. Although Congress can abrogate a state's sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Brooks-McCol/um v. Delaware, 213 F. App'x 92, 3 94 (3d Cir. 2007). In addition , dismissal is proper because the DOC is not a person for purposes of§ 1983. See Will v. Michigan Oep 't of State Police , 491 U.S. 58 , 71 (1989) ; Calhoun v. Young , 288 F. App'x 47 (3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the claims against the DOC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and § 1915A(b)(2) as it is immune from suit. Plaintiff has raised what appear to be cognizable and non-frivolous Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against the remaining Defendants. CONCLUSION For the above reasons , the Court will: (1) dismiss the Delaware Department of Correction as a defendant based upon its immunity from suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and 1915A(b)(2); and (2) allow Plaintiff to proceed against Defendants C/O Nelson , C/O Wooleyan , and Sgt. McKenna. An appropriate Order will be entered. 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
