Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00025-JJF Document 5 Filed 03/15/2006 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOSE A. COLON, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 06-25-JJF
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,g
Defendant. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Jose A. Colon, an inmate at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Facility (“HRYCI”), Wilmington, Delaware, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
appears prg sg and on February 1, 2006, was granted ig fggma
pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 3.) 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 is dismissed
without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff is given leave to amend his complaint.
I. THE COMQLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that sometime between April 2005 and June
2005 he was given medication that was not ordered for him.
Plaintiff alleges that he filed a medical grievance requesting
that the medication be stopped, that sometime in August he was
seen by Medical Supervisor Linda Hunter, and after a brief

Case 1:06-cv-OOO25-JJF Document 5 Filed O3/15/2006 Page 2 of 4
explanation he was given a simple apology and told he would
receive a written copy through the institution’s mail. To date,
he has not received the copy.
He asks that his case be heard by this Court and that
HRYCI’s medical department provide him with a copy of the
resolution for the grievance he filed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
when a litigant proceeds in fgrma 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. § l915(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).
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. l996)(citing
Holder v. City of Allentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Additionally, pgp se complaints are held to "less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only
2

Case 1:06-cv-00025-JJF Document 5 Filed O3/15/2006 Page 3 of 4 I
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)(qu0ting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
III. ANALYSIS
The Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment requires that prison officials provide inmates with
adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-105
(1976). In order to set forth a cognizable claim, an inmate must
allege (i) a serious medical need and (ii) acts or omissions by
prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that
need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104; Rouse v. Plantier, 182
F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). A prison official is deliberately
indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk
of serious harm and fails to take reasonable steps to avoid the
harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. B25, 837 (1994).
Additionally, a prison official may manifest deliberate
indifference by “intentionally denying or delaying access to
medical care.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05.
In the present case, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged
an Eighth Amendment medical claim. There are no allegations of a
serious medical need. Nor are there allegations that prison
officials were indifferent to any risk. Indeed, the complaint
3

Case1:O6-cv-00025-JJF D0cument5 Filed O3/15/2006 Page40f4
alleges that when alerted to the problem, the medication was
stopped. Finally, Plaintiff makes no allegations of any injury
sustained as a result of the medication given to him.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint 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)
and § 19l5A(E)(2)(b). The Court takes allegations of medical
claims seriously. Accordingly, Plaintiff is given leave to amend
his complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
,/·
NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this i>__ day of March, 2006,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
I. The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § I915A(b)(l).
2. Plaintiff is given leave to amend the complaint. 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.
— ·- (N Q~<»¤»—e.L
UN§TED §TA£§% DISTRICTEJ%DGE
4