Dula v. DeMatteis et al, No. 1:2019cv02243 - Document 12 (D. Del. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 10/06/2020. (sam)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dula v. DeMatteis et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STTES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DEAWRE STEEN PAUL DULA, Plainif, v. : Cv. No. 19-2243-LPS CLAIRE DEMATEIS, et al., Deendants. Steven Paul Dula, Sussex Comuruy Correcional Center, Georgetown, Delaware. Pro Se Plaini. MEMORNDUM OPINION Ocober 6, 2020 Wmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com f v' ST U.S. District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plainif Steven Paul Dula ("Plnif') was an inmate at the J rnes T. Vaughn Correcional Center (''JTVCC") in Smyna, Delaware at the me he led his acion pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. 1 D.I. 1) Plainif appears pose and has paid he iling ee.2 The Court proceeds to review and screen he Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A(a). II. BACKGROUND Plainif alleges that he is disabled by reason of his inability to lift or pul anying over ive pounds, dianoses of ADD (z:e., attenion deicit disorder) and depression, and an inability to read beyond the ifth-grade level. D.I. 1 at 15) Crrent Delaware Deparment of Correcion Rule 7.2 ("Rule 7.2"), efecive August 26, 2019, esablishes an accurate and consistent system or recording and reporng statutoy and meritorious good me credits. See https:/ /doc.delaware.gov/assets/ documents/policies/policy_7-2.pdf. Plainif aleges that Policy 7.2 dated February 13, 2018,3 which apparently is similar to current Poicy 7.2, violated his ights by reason of discminaion under Title II of Ameicans with Disabiliies Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; Secion 504 of the Rehabilitaion Act ("Rehab Act"), 29 U.S.C.§ 794(b); and the Equal Protecion Clause nder 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, because it precludes him rom paricipaing in educaion and work progrns due to is disabiliy 1 In August 2020, Plainif noiied the Court of a change of address, staing that he is now on work release. D.I. 11) When bnging a§ 1983 claim, a plainif must allege that some person has depived him of a ederal ght, and that the person who caused he depivaion acted under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 2 Secion 1915Ab )(1) is applicable to all pisoner lawsuits regardless of wheher the liigant paid the fee al at once or in instllments. See Stinger v. Bueau fPisons, FederalAgeny, 145 F. App'x 751, 752 (3d Cir. 2005). 3 The Complant cites to porions of Policy 7.2, efecive February 13, 2018, but it does not contain a complete copy of it. (Se D.I. 1 at 13-14) 1 and, thus, he is unable to ean meitorious good ime4 (that allows ofenders to reduce ther sentence by ive days per month or working and/ or paricipaing n educaion programs ofered at JTVCC). D.I. 1 at 5) Plainif alleges the violaions occurred rom September 13, 2019 through December 9, 2019, the date he iled he complaint. D.I. 1 at 5) Plainif alleges hat he "requested a job by asking each unit sergeant to place [his] name on he employment ist O, he told them about his] isabity, and have [sic] never been cal[ed] to work." (I. at 6) Planif also alleges that the uit counselor placed his name n the work pool or a job, and he was not called. .) Wih regard to educaional and vocaional programs, Plainif aleges hat he does not read at the miimum requred reading levels. 5 (d. at 7) Pnif alleges Defendant Commissioner Claire DeMatteis ("DeMatteis") iolated his ights by enacng or implemening Poiy 7.2 knowing it iolated Plaini's ights; hat Deendant Warden Dana Metzger ("Metzger") violated is ights by applng Poliy 7.2; that Defendant inda Marin ("Marn"), manager of centtal ofender records or he Deaware Department of Correcion ("DOC"), appies good ime; and that Deendant Sandra Waldee ("Waldee"), the JVCC educaion supevisor, removes ofenders rom educaion programs to stop the award of good ime to ofenders wih leng disabiliies. D.I. 1 at 6) Plainif seeks injuncive reief, good ime creits to reduce his sentence, placement on level three probaion, and compensatory damages.' (Id. at 9-10) Meritoious good me is ened by an ofender or paricipaion n educaion, rehabitaion, work or other programs and successul compleion of designaion programs. See Rule 7.2 at i VI.A.2. 4 Plainif states that an imate must have a current placement test on le beore enrolment n any educaion class. D.I. 1 at 7) Plainif does not ndicate whether he has taken a placement test or if he has a placement test on ile but it seems he has not, given is statement in a gievance he submitted that it is his understanding the educaion deparment would test m and if he did not pass the test ater hree imes, he would be removed rom any educaional program. (d. at 15-16) 5 A clm challening the "act or duraion" of a sentence is ypiclly led as a habeas peiion. Plini's complaint seems to be a combined civil ights complaint and peiion or habeas reief, 6 2 III. LEGL STNDRDS A federal court my propery dismiss an acion sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) if"the acion is rivolous or malicious, als to state a clam upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary reief rom a defendant who is immune rom such relief." Bal v. mglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e pisoner acions brought wih respect to prison condiions). The Cort must accept al actual alegaions in a compint as true and take hem in the light most avorable to a prose planif. See Phillps v. Couny fAlleghey, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pas, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Planif proceeds po se, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complant, "however inartlly pleaded, must be held to less stingent standards than ormal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Eickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citaions omitte). A coplaint is not automaically ivolous because it als to state a clam. See Dooly v. Weel, 957 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020); ee aso Gryson v. My iew Sae Hop., 293 F.3d 103, 112 (3d Cir. 2002). "Rather, a clam is ivolous oly where it depends 'on an "inisputably meitless legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "antasic or delusionaf' actual scenaio."' Dooly v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d at 374 (quoing hel v. Hon, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (2003) and Neke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). The legal standard or dismissng a complaint or flure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1) is idenical to the legal standard used when deciding Rule 126)(6) moions. See Toursherv. McCuough, 184 F.3d 236,240 (3d Cr. 1999) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(6) standard to dismissal or filure to state claim under§ 1915(e)(2)B)). However, beore dismissing a complaint or claims or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the iven hat he seeks injuncive reief, early release rom pison, and copensatory damages. The Court does not consider any claims or habeas relief to the extent that is what Plainif seeks. Plainif's remedy with respect to that porion of his claims is to le a separate acion habeas relief See e.g., Brily v. Waen Fort Dix , 703 F. App'x 69, n.2 (3d Cir. 2017). 3 screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he Court must grant a plainif leave to amend his Complant, unless amendment would be inequitable or ule. See Gryson, 293 F.3d at 114. A complaint may be dismissed only if,acceping he well-pleaded allegaions in the complaint as true and viewng them in the light most avorable to the planiff, a court concludes that hose alegaions "cold not raise a claim of enitlement to relief." Bel/A/. Cop. v. Twomby, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though "detailed actual alegaions" are not required, a complaint must do more than smply provide "labels and conclusions" or "a ormulaic recitaion of the elements of a cause of acion." Dais v. Abington Mem'! Hop., 765 F.3d 236,241 (3d Cir. 2014) (intenal quotaion marks oitted). In addiion, a complaint must contain suficient acual matter, accepted as true,to state a claim to reief that is plausible on its ace. See ms v. BASF Cataysts LC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) (cingAshrtv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) and Twomby, 550 U.S. at 570). Finaly, a plainif must plead acts suicient to show hat a clm has substanive plausibility. See Johnson v. Ciy fShely, 574 U.S. 10 (2014). A complant may not be dismissed or mperect statements of the legal theory supporing the laim asserted. See id. Under the pleading regme established by Twomby and Iqbal, a cort reviewing the suiciency of a complaint must take hree steps: (1) take note of the elements the pinif must plead to state a clam; (2) ideniy allegaions that, because hey are no more than conclusions,are not enitled to the assmpion of truh; and (3) when there are wel-pleaded acual allegaions, the court should assume their veracity and hen determne whether they plausibly give ise to an enitlement to reief. See Connely v. ane Const. Cop., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are suficiently aleged when the acts in the complaint "show" hat the plainif is eniled to reief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (ciing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Decing whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-speciic task that requires he reviewing court to draw on its judicial expeience and common sense." Id. 4 IV. DISCUSSION Although the Due Process Clause does not guarantee the right to en good me creits, see Abdul-Akbar v. Dpartment f Corr., 910 F. Supp. 986, 1003 D. Del. 1995), fd, 111 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1997) (table), an mate may not be precluded rom programs designed to ean good me credits by reason of a disability. Pnifs clams rely in part upon Title II of the ADA and he Rehab Act. Both requre public eniies, incluing state prisons, to proide, in all of heir programs, sevices, and aciviies, a reasonable accommodaion to ndividuals with disabliies. See Fugess v. Pennylvana Dp't f Co"., 933 F.3d 285, 287(3d Cir. 2019). Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons and programs that conerred beneits on mates, inclung the opportnity to obtan an earlier release on parole. See Pnnylvania Dp't f Corr. v. Yesky, 524 U.S. 206, 209-11 (1998) (Peiioner stated caim under Title II of ADA when he alleged he was excluded disciminatoily rom pison work proram due to his medical condiion, where compleion of program would have led to his release on parole); ut v. Ashe, 592 F. Supp. 2d 204, 206-08 D. Mass. 2008) (inmate may not be barred under Title II of ADA rom work programs that may have efect of reducing sentence). Plainif also attempts to raise an Equal Protecion clam. To state an Equal Protecion claim, Plainif must demonstrate that he was reated adversely compared to oher similarly-situated individuals. See Engquist v. Oegon Dp't fAgic., 553 U.S. 591 (2008). Plainiff has ailed to state claims under any of his proposed theoies. Frst, it is ar rom clear that Plainif has named the proper deendants. In addiion, the Compnt fils to allege any conduct by any named Defendant that led to the denial of a work assiment or entry into any educaional programs. The Complaint does not indicate when Plainif applied or any job assignments or who denied him any job assigment that he sought. With regard to educaional prorams, the allegaions suggest that Planif never enrolled in any vocaional or educaion 5 program based upon he beief that he could not meet he requirements of the placement test. Finally, the Compint does not refer to imates who are srly situated to Plaini. Given these pleading deiciencies, the Complaint ill be disissed or ailure to state claims upon which reief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plinif wil be iven leave to ile an amended complaint. See Chestnut v. Finck, 722 F. App'x 115, 118 (3d Cr. 2018) ("]e are indul to ive a iberal consucion to pro se pleadings, paricularly n ciil ights cases where plainifs should generally be aforded leave to amend.") (intenal citaions omitted). V. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court wil disiss the Complaint or ailure to state a cm upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plainif l be given leave to le an amended complaint. An appropiate Order l be entered. 6
]]>
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.
