Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv—O0773-SLR Document 11 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
EIVIANUEL H. JONES, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. 06-773-SLR
DELAWARE STATE DEPARTMENT )
CORRECTION, )
Defendant. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this \Dl*day of April, 2007, having screened the case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §1915A;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, and that plaintiff is given leave to tile an
amended complaint, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Emanuel H. Jones, a detainee at the Howard R.
Young Correctional Institution ("HRYCI“), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (DI. 2) An amended complaint was filed on February 6, 2007. (D.l. 7)
He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff
has also filed a motion to appoint counsel. (D.l. 8)
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 of the complaint by the court. Both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §

Case 1:06-cv—O0773-SLR Document 11 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
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 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)).
4. Discussion. Plaintiff alleges 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, delay, denial and inadequate medical treatment, tire 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. Eleventh Amendment Immunity. The Delaware Department of Correction,
-g-

Case 1:06-cv—O0773-SLR Document 11 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
an agency of the State of Delaware, is the only named defendant. "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). Hence, as an agency ofthe State of Delaware, the
Department of Correction is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
Plaintiffs claims against the Department of Correction have no arguable basis in law or
in fact inasmuch as it is immune from suit. Therefore. it is frivolous and is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)
6. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint is dismissed,
without prejudice, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. Plaintiff
makes many serious allegations. He is given leave to amend the complaint to name
appropriate defendants. The amended complaint shall be filed within thirty days from
the date of this order. lf an amended complaint is not filed within the time allowed, then
the case will be closed. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel (D.l. 8) is denied without
prejudice with leave to refile should the case proceed to service.
-3-