Thomas v. Morgan, No. 1:2010cv00596 - Document 8 (D. Del. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). ( Civil Case Terminated ). Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/2/2010. (rpg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thomas v. Morgan Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ANTHONY N. THOMAS, Plaintiff, : Civ. No. 10-596-LPS v. PHIL MORGAN, Defendant. Anthony N. Thomas, Howard R. Young Correctional, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION November 2, 2010 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com I. INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff Anthony N. Thomas ("Thomas"), an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution ("HR YCI") in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (D.I. 2) He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.1. 4) The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. II. BACKGROUND Thomas attempted to visit the law library to work on his case and was told that he could not. Instead, he was told to write down what he needed. A memorandum attached to the Complaint, dated June 18,2010, states as follows: "The West Law Library is now a mail correspondence library only. There are no appointments any longer. You must write us with your legal concerns and we will respond by mail in writing." (D.I. 2, ex.) Thomas did not want anyone else working on his case so he filed a grievance. He seeks punitive damages. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a lWhen bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.c. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from governmental defendant); 42 U.S.c. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). 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 ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Thomas proceeds pro se, 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 (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 at 327- 28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); see also, e.g., Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took inmate's pen and refused to give it back). 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. See Tourscher v. ivfcCuliough, 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 2 grant Thomas leave to amend his complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F .3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S._, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the Court conducts a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPAfC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal elements of a claim are separated. Id. The Court must accept all of the Complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id. at 210-11. Second, the Court must determine whether the facts alleged in the Complaint are sufficient to show that Thomas has a "plausible claim for relief." Id. at 211. In other words, the Complaint must do more than allege Plaintiffs entitlement to relief; rather, it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id A claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief. '" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 3 IV. DISCUSSION Prisoners must be allowed "adequate, effective and meaningful" access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,822 (1977) (holding that prisons must give inmates access to law libraries or direct legal assistance). However, a violation of the First Amendment right of access to the courts is only established where a litigant shows that he was actually injured by the alleged denial of access. The actual injury requirement is a constitutional prerequisite to suit. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403,415 (2002) (explaining that constitutional right of access is "ancillary to the underlying claim, without which a plaintiff cannot have suffered injury by being shut out of court"). An actual injury is shown only where a nonfrivolous, arguable claim is lost. See Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415. Here, Thomas fails to sufficiently allege an injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim. He does not allege an injury, or that his case has been frustrated or impeded. He does not even allege that he was denied access to the law library, just that he was not given the type of access he wanted (i.e., in person). He merely complains that he did not want anyone else working on his case and, therefore, did not wish to comply with the HRYCI's requirements for law library access. The complaint fails to allege an access to the courts claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(l). 4 VI. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Amendment of the Complaint would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004); Grayson v. 1'v1ayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F .2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). An appropriate Order follows. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ANTHONY N. THOMAS, PlaintifI, v. : Civ. No.1 0-596-LPS PHIL MORGAN, Defendant. ORDER At Wilmington this 2nd day of November, 2010, consistent with the Memorandum Opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Amendment is futile. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
]]>
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.
