Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—O0O70-SLR Document 9 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PATRICIA A. SIMPSON, )
Plaintiff, g
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-70-SLR
WARDEN RYAN, COMMISSIONER g
STANLEY TAYLOR, CMS, and )
BAYLOR MEDICAL STAFF, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington thisn-(day of April, 2007, having screened the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A;
IT IS ORDERED that the claims against defendants Warden Ryan,
Commissioner Stanley Taylor, and Baylor Medical Staff are dismissed, without
prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, forthe reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Patricia A. Simpson, an inmate at the Delores J.
Baylor Women’s Correctional Institution ("BWCI"), filed this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2) She appears pro se and has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to
her serious medical needs. Plaintiff also tiled a motion for appointment of counsel.
(D.I. 3)
2. Standard of Review. When a Iitigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 provides for dismissal under certain circumstances. When a prisoner seeks

Case 1:07-cv—O0O70-SLR Document 9 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 2 of 4
redress from a government defendant 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 §
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).
3. The court must "accept as true factual allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65
(3d Cir. 1996)(citing Holder v. City of Allentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Additionally, pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by |awyers" 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 re|ief."' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521
(1972)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
4. Discussion. Plaintiff alleges that she developed a staff infection and
presented to the medical department for treatment, but was told to submit medical slips.
Plaintiff alleges she submitted the slips, yet was not seen until she "raise[d] holy heck"
after a long period of suffering. Named as defendants are CMS, Baylor Medical Staff,
Warden Ryan ("Warden Ryan"), and former Department of Correction Commissioner
Stanley Taylor ("Commissioner Taylor").
5. Personal lnvolvementIRespondeat Superior. A civil rights complaint must
-2-

Case 1:07-cv—00O70-SLR Document 9 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 3 of 4
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
@@_, 570 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 1978)). Additionally, when bringing a § 1983 claim, a
plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived her 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). Finally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides that a pleading must set forth a
claim for relief which contains a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. The complaint contains no allegations directed towards
Warden Ryan or Commissioner Taylor and, therefore, the court will dismiss the claims
against them. Additionally, plaintiff refers to the Baylor Medical Staff, but does not list
specific staff members as defendants. A civil rights complaint must identify the persons
responsible for the alleged unconstitutional acts. Therefore, the court will dismiss it as a
defendant. Plaintiff, however, will be allowed to amend her complain to name Baylor
Medical Staff members who allegedly violated plaintiffs constitutional rights.
6. It appears that plaintiff seeks to hold Warden Ryan and former Commissioner
Taylor liable on the basis of their supervisory positions. Supervisory liability cannot be
imposed under 1963 on a respondeat superior theory. g Monell v. Department of
Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362
(1976). In order for a supervisory public official to be held liable for a subordinate's
constitutional tort, the official must either be the "moving force [behind] the constitutional
violation" or exhibit "deIiberate indifference to the plight of the person deprived." Samgg
-3-

Case 1:07-cv—O0O70-SLR Document 9 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 4 of 4
v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1118 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S.
378, 389 (1989)).
7. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that Warden Ryan or former
Commissioner Taylor were the driving force behind the conduct described in plaintiffs
allegations. More so, the complaint does not indicate that they were aware of plaintiffs
allegations and remained "de|iberateIy indifferent" to her plight. Sample v. Diecks, 885
F.2d at 1118. Therefore, the court will dismiss without prejudice the claims against
Warden Ryan and Commissioner Taylor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §
1915A(b)(1).
8. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the claims against
defendants Warden Ryan, former Commissioner Stanley W. Taylor, and the Baylor
Medical Staff are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. Plaintiff is given leave
to amend the complaint to name as defendants specific Baylor Medical Staff members.
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 proceed
against defendant CMS and a service order will issue. Plaintiffs motion to appoint
counsel (D.I. 3) is denied without prejudice with leave to refile following service of the
complaint.
-4-