Free Memorandum Opinion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07—cv—00203-GI\/IS Document 7 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DARON J. RODGERS, )
Plaintiff g
v. g Civ. No. 07-203-***
) ti e
CARL DANBERG, DETECTIVE ) E I I- E D
SHRINNER, MAYOR KENNY ) `
BRANNER, TIMOTHY TEARL, MARIA ) IH, j n EQU?
T. KNOLL, CHIEF COL. RICK ) j (J l
GREGORY, and RUTH ANN MINNER, ) Uns--Eg-gimb-EEJ
Defendants, j L$.IFil’é’I.Qf. DELA1*`~/ME __
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff Daron J. Rodgers ("Rodgers”), an inmate at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution (‘°HRYCI") tiled this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appears
pro se and was granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 5.) The
court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
1915A.
For the reasons discussed below, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim up which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l915(e)(2)(B) and
§ 1915A(b)(1). Rodgers is given leave to amend the complaint.
I. THE COMPLAINT
Rodgers alleges that on August 30, 2003, he was accused of a crime he did not commit
and taken to the HYRCI where he waited for months until he was sentenced to Level IV. He
alleges he received three years for his violation of probation ("VOP”). The case went to trial on
March 30, 2005, and a jury found Rodgers not guilty. Rodgers alleges he remained in jail on the

Case 1:07—cv—00203-GI\/IS Document 7 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 2 of 4
remainder of his VOP and was released in February 2006. Rodgers alleges his arrest was the
result of lack of investigation by the New Castle Southem patrol unit and the arresting officer.
Rodgers seeks compensation for the time he spent in jail.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a litigant proceeds informa pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for dismissal
under certain circumstances. Vlfhen a prisoner seeks redress in a civil action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
provides for screening of the complaint by the court. Both 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(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 "lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
ln 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. l2(b)(6). F ullman v.
Pennsylvania Dep ’t ofCorr., No. 4:07CV-000079, 2007 WL 257617 (M.D. 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. Harbury, 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 ‘grourrds' of
-2-

Case 1:07—cv—00203-GI\/IS Document 7 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 3 of 4
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." [cl at 1965 (citations omitted). The "[f]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)." Ial
(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).
III. ANALYSIS
A civil rights complaint must state the conduct, time, place, and persons responsible for
the alleged civil rights violations. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F .3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing
Boykins v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist., 621 F .2d 75, 80 (3d Cir. 1980); Hall v. Pennsylvania State
Police, 570 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir.1978)). Additionally, when 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).
While not clear, it appears Rodgers attempts to allege either unlawful incarceration or
wrongful prosecution. The complaint, as it now stands, does not apprise the defendants of any
action they may have taken that resulted in Rodgers’ alleged civil rights violations. Indeed, there
is no mention of a specific defendant other than the listing of the defendants in the caption of the
complaint and in the defendants section, and Rodgers does not associate any of his allegations
with any of the defendants. Therefore, the claim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and §
-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00203—G|\/IS Document 7 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 4 of 4
i915A(b)(l).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons the court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Rodgers will be given leave to amend the complaint. Ari
appropriate order will be entered dismissing the case.
UNIT% STATES DISTRICT JUDGE i
I , 2007
Wilmin ton, Delaware
-4-