Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv—00773-SLR Document 14 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
EMANUEL H. JONES, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. 06-773-SLR
WARDEN RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, g
MAJOR DAVE WILLIAMS, )
LT. SHYERS, LT. WILLIAMS, )
SGT. WILLIAMS, OFFICER BAKER, )
OFFICER GALLI, and OFFICER )
SHARMA, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At V\Hlmington this \?J"Hay of June, 2007, having screened the amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint and its amendments are dismissed, without
prejudice, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, and that plaintiff is
given a final opportunity to file an amended complaint, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Emanuel H. Jones, a detainee at the Howard R.
Young Correctional Institution ("HRYCl"), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and an amended complaint was filed on February 6, 2007. (D.|. 2, 7)
The original complaint and its amendment were dismissed as frivolous following
screening by the court and plaintiff was given leave to amend. (D.l. 11) The
amendment was timely filed on May 1, 2007. (D.I. 12) Plaintiff also tiled a renewed
motion to appoint counsel. (D.I. 13)

Case 1:06-cv—00773-SLR Document 14 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 4
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
"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-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 ‘grounds' of his
‘entit|ement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
-2-

Case 1:06-cv—00773-SLR Document 14 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 3 of 4
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Ld, 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 ofthe compIaint's allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." lc; (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).
4. Discussion. Plaintiffs allegations are identical to those raised in his initial
complaint and amendment. The recent amendment contains no new allegations and
merely states, "the names of appropriate defendants in this civil action" following by a
list of names. (D.|. 12) As originally pled, plaintiff alleged that, as a detainee at HRYCI,
he has been subjected to a variety of constitutional violations which include the
following: sleeping on a mattress on the floor; extremely cold temperatures; standing up
to eat meals; lack of recreation; inadequate medical treatment; fire hazards; flooding;
dirty food trays; insect, rat and mice infestation; unsanitary showers; wet and dangerous
floors; exposure to methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus or MRSA infection; food
containing a foreign object; failing to receive special diets; excessive force; and failing
to protect him from harm.
5. Personal Involvement. "A defendant in a civil rights action must have
personal involvement in the alleged wrongs" to be liable. Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d
236, 249 (3d Cir. 2003)(quoting Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.
-3-

Case 1:06-cv—00773-SLR Document 14 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 4 of 4
1988). Plaintiff names as "appropriate defendants" Warden Raphael Williams, Major
Dave Williams, Lts. Shyers and Williams, Sgt. Williams, and Officers Baker, Galli and
Sharma. The recently filed amendment, however, contains no allegations against these
defendants, and plaintiff provides no facts to support a claim against them. As a result,
the claims lack an arguable basis in law or in fact and the complaint and its
amendments are dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915/\(b)(1).
8. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint and its
amendments are dismissed, without prejudice, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 and § 1915A. Plaintiff is given a Hnal opportunity to amend. 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. Plaintiffs
motion to appoint counsel (D.I. 13) is denied without prejudice with leave to refile should
the case proceed to service.

-4-