Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—00210-SLR Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CURTIS L. EVANS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. 07-210-SLR
WARDEN THOMAS CARROLL, g
Defendant. g
AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER*
At Wilmington this Ilrlhday of July, 2007, having screened the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and §1915A;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
1915A, for the reasons that follow;
1. Background. Plaintiff Curtis L. Evans, an inmate at the Delaware
Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Standard of Review. When a litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 provides for dismissal under certain circumstances. When a prisoner seeks
redress from a government defendant in a civil action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for
screening ofthe complaint by the court. Both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §
1915A(b)(1) provide that the court may dismiss a complaint, at any time, if the action is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it

Case 1:07-cv—00210-SLB Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 4
"lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989).
3. In performing the court's screening function under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court
applies the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Fullman v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:07CV—000O79, 2007 WL 257617 (MD. Pa.
Jan. 25, 2007) (citing Weiss v Colley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7*" Cir. 2000). The court
must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, -—U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007);
Christopher v. Harbugg, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). Additionally, a complaint must
contain "‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the. . . claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests."’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, —U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). A complaint does not need detailed
factual allegations, however "a plaintiffs obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." @4 at 1965 (citations
omitted). The "[t]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Ld; (citations omitted). Because plaintiff
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, —U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
2

Case 1:07-cv—00210-SLR Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 3 of 4
4. Discussion. Plaintiff brings this suit alleging that, when he was placed in
isolation, his Iockbox, along with the rest of his personal property, was sent to the
property room. Plaintiff was ultimately moved to a building where he was allowed to
keep the lockbox, requested his lockbox from the property room, and was told there was
no record of plaintiff owning a lockbox. He asks the court for money to purchase a new
Iockbox.
5. A prisoner's due process claim based on random and unauthorized deprivation
of property by a state actor is not actionable under § 1983, whether the deprivation is
negligent or intentional, unless there is no adequate post—deprivation remedy available.
See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 542 (1981), overruled on other grounds by, 474
U.S. 327 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Plaintiff has available to
him the option of tiling a common law claim for conversion of property. lnasmuch as
Delaware law provides an adequate remedy for plaintiff, he cannot maintain a cause of
action pursuant to § 1983. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 535; Nicholson v. Carroll, 390
F.Supp. 2d 429, 435 (D. Del. 2005); Acierno v. Preit-Rubin, Inc., 199 F.R.D. 157 (D. Del.
2001) (other citations omitted). As currently presented, the complaint lacks an arguable
basis in law or in fact and must, therefore, be denied as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
6. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Amendment ofthe complaint would be futile. See;
Grayson v. ll/layview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City of
3

Case 1:07-cv-00210-SLR Document 8 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 4 of 4
Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976). Plaintiff is not required to pay any
previously assessed fees or *the remaining balance of the* $350.00 Hling fee. The clerk
of the court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appropriate prison business
office.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4