Dean v. Harris et al, No. 1:2019cv02096 - Document 8 (D. Del. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/4/2020. (nms)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dean v. Harris et al Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EUGENE DEAN , Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 19-2096-RGA V. DR. HARRIS, et al., Defendants. Eugene Dean , Sussex Correctional Institution , Georgetown , Delaware . Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION r, February 2020 Wilmington , Delaware Dockets.Justia.com ANDREWS, U. . District Judge: Plaintiff Eugene Dean , an inmate at the Sussex Correctional Institution in Georgetown , Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D .I. 1). Plaintiff appears prose and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 6). The Court proceeds to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(a). BACKGROUND The allegations are the following : "Medical negligence - The doctor won 't give me right treatment for my legs. They did nothing ." (D .I. 1 at 5-6). For relief Plaintiff states, "Let me go home or give me $250 ,000. " (Id. at 8). 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 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 1 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 at U.S. 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 plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S.10 (2014) . A complaint may not 2 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 Constr. 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 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants - Dr. Harris and Connections CSP -- are not providing him medical care . The Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison officials provide inmates with adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97 , 103-105 (1976) . In order to set forth a cognizable claim , an inmate must allege (i) a serious medical need and (ii) acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need . Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. at 104; Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of 3 serious harm and fails to take reasonable steps to avoid the harm. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825 , 837 (1994) . A "prison official may manifest deliberate indifference by intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. However, a prisoner has no right to choose a specific form of medical treatment. Lasko v. Watts , 373 F. App 'x 196, 203 (3d Cir. 2010) . An inmate's claims against members of a prison medical department are not viable under § 1983 where the inmate receives continuing care, but believes that more should be done by way of diagnosis and treatment and maintains that options available to medical personnel were not pursued on the inmate's behalf. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. at 107. In addition , allegations of medical malpractice are not sufficient to establish a constitutional violation . See White v. Napoleon , 897 F.2d 103, 108-09 (3d Cir. 1990). As pied , the complaint fails to state an actionable constitutional claim. The allegations do not provide any time-frame , and do not adequately describe Plaintiff's condition or treatment, if any, he has received . Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1 ). However, since it appears plausible that Plaintiff may be able to articulate a § 1983 claim against Defendants , he will be given an opportunity to amend his pleading . See O'Dell v. United States Gov't, 256 F. App 'x 444 (3d Cir. 2007) . 4 CONCLUSION For the above reasons , the Court will: (1) dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and§ 1915A(b)(1 ). Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint. An appropriate Order will be entered. 5
]]>
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.
