Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00157-GIVIS Document 6 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DARYL T. ELLIS, )
Plaintiff, l
v. ) Civ. Action No. 07-157-GMS
HOWARD R. YOUNG CORRECTIONAL )
INSTITUTION, )
Defendant. l
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, Daryl T. Ellis ("Ellis"), an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution ("HRYCI"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appears pro se and
was granted permission to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 4.)
The court now proceeds to review and screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
l915A.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a litigant proceeds informa pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for dismissal
under certain circumstances. When 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §
191 5A(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 "1acks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The court must "accept as tmc factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable

Case 1:07-cv—00157-Gl\/IS Document 6 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 2 of 4
inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)(citir1g
Holder v. City ofrlllentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)). Additionally, pro se complaints
are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be
dismissed for failure to state a claim when "it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."’ Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
II. ANALYSIS
Ellis alleges that he was assaulted by another inmate, reported the assault to "HYRCI
Institute," and it did nothing to assist Ellis with the problem. (D.l. 2, 2.) Ellis alleges he
sustained injuries as a result of the assault. Ellis also alleges he was wrongfully sent to the
detention area of the facility because of the assault. Id. at 4.
Ellis has named a defendant who is immune from suit. The HRYCI falls under the
umbrella of the Delaware Department of Correction, an agency of the State of Delaware. 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). Moreover, state correctional institutions are arms of the state and not
persons subject to liability under § 1983. See Green v. Howard R. Young Corr. Inst., 229 F.R.D.
99, 102 (D. Del. 2005). "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)). The State of Delaware has not
waived its sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Ospina v. Dep 't of Corr.,
749 F.Supp. 572, 579 (D. Del. 1991). Accordingly, the HYRCI is entitled to immunity under the
-2-

Case 1:07-cv—00157-Gl\/IS Document 6 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 3 of 4
Eleventh Amendment.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons the court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted as the HRYCI is immune from suit. Therefore, the court will
dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l915(e)(2)(B) and §
191 5A(b)(l). Ellis will be given leave to amend the complaint to name the correct individual
defendants. An appropriate order will be entered.
S ATES i0IST§iCT Juiéh
kl E [O , 2007
Wilmingt n, Delaware
F I L E D
¤&?¤l2!?'é“é%E‘E£»$E§E
-3-

Case 1:07-cv—00157-Gl\/IS Document 6 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DARYL T. ELLIS, )
Plaintiff g
v. 3 Civ. Action No. 07-157-GMS
HOWARD R. vouixio CORRECTIONAL i
INSTITUTION, )
Defendant. l
ORDER
At Wilmington this y of X Q? fi , 2007, for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum issued this date,
l. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
l9l5(e)(2)(B) and § l915A(b)(l).
2. Ellis is given leave to amend the complaint to name the correct individual
defendants. The amended complaint shall be filed within thirty days from the date of this order.
If an amended complaint is not filed within the time allowed, then the case will be closed.

F I L E D
MAY 1 1 2007 A
p__ ¤lé?a?é?—l$é%TE?EtilEEE