Shotwell v. State of Delaware, No. 1:2016cv00441 - Document 12 (D. Del. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/22/2016. (cna)

Download PDF

Shotwell v. State of Delaware Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MARKJ. SHOTWELL, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-441-RGA V. DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, eta!., Defendants. Mark J. Shotwell, Newark, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION November 2016 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com ANDREWS; U.S. Distric^ Judge: Plaintiff Mark J. Shotwell filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights, presumably pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4). The Court reviewed and scree'ned the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and gave Plaintiff leave to | amend to name the correct defendants. (See D.I. 2, 9, 10). He filed an amended complaint on OctoberSI, 2016. (D.I. 11). INTRODUCTION The amended complaint names newly added Defendants Delaware Department of Justice, Middletown Police Department, Officer Jordan Douglass, Officer Michele Wharton, and Detective Stafford. Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed against Middletown Police Department, Officer Jordan Douglass, Officer Michele Wharton, and Detective Stafford. For the reasons discussed, the Delaware DOJ will be dismissed as immune from suit. DISCUSSION A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screenihg provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails t|) state aclaim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a | defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famlglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to apro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County ofAlleghen),, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because 1 Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "howler inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations 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). Under28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), ^ 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 forfailure to state a claim pursiiant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 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) (applying Fed. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under§ 1915(e)(2)(l3)) 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, 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). Awell-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusiorts See Ashcroft V. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 54^ (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficientto show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A, complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 346. 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 lhat, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of trtth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume the sir veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to reliejf. Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (intemal citations and quotations omitted). 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 thai requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." id. Plaintiff has named the Delaware DOJ as a defendant. 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) (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)). 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-McCollum v. Delaware, 213 F. App'x 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2007). The Delaware DOJ is immune from suit. Therefore it will be dismissed as a defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will: (1) dismiss the Delaware DOJ as it is immune from suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); and (2) allow Plaintiffto proceed against Middletown Police Department, Officer Jordan Douglass, Officer Michele Wharton, and Detective Stafford. An appropriate order will be entered.

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.