Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv-00017-GIVIS Document 7 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAY. M. RINGGOLD, SR., )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 06-17-GMS
WILMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, g
OFFICER THOMAS CURLEY, and )
OFFICER NELIDA VEGA, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Jay M. Ringgold, Sr., ("Ringgold"), is currently incarcerated at the Delaware
Correctional Institute ("DCC"), in Smyrna, Delaware. He filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Ringgold appears pro se and was given leave to proceed informa pouperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5. (D.I. 3.) The court now proceeds to review and screen the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § l9l5A.
I. THE COMPLAINT
Ringgold alleges that at approximately 7:00 PM, on March l0, 2004, and during a police
chase, his vehicle was rarmned by the police cruisers of the defendants Officer Thomas Curley
and Officer Nelida Vega. Ringgold also alleges that on March 11, 2004, while being transported
in a van driven by a police officer for the Wilmington Police Department, rear-ended a Jeep
Cherokee. Ringgold alleges that he was immediately taken to the hospital upon arrival of
medical personnel.
Ringgold alleges that as result of these incidents he sustained injuries. He seeks financial
compensation and a formal apology.

Case 1:06-cv—00017-Gl\/IS Document 7 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 2 of 4
II. 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 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.
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). 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 ofAllentown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)). 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), and the claims "are of little or no weight, value, or importance, not worthy of
serious consideration, or trivia1." Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995).
Additionally, a pro se complaint 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)).
III. ANALYSIS
A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him
of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law.
2

Case 1:06-cv—00017-Gl\/IS Document 7 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 3 of 4
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Even construing the complaint liberally, Ringgold has
not alleged a constitutional violation by the Wilmington Police Department during the March 11,
2004, accident with the Jeep Cherokee. Ringgold has alleged mere negligence, nothing more.
Unfortunately for Ringgold, negligence alone is insufficient to impose liability under §
1983. Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330
(1996). Accordingly, the § 1983 claim against the Wilmington Police Department is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
B. Supplemental State Claim
Ringgold’s supplemental state claim against the Wilmington Police Department is also
deficient. The Delaware County and Municipal Tort Claims Act, Del. Code Ann. tit 10, § 4010
et seq. provides that all governmental entities and their employees shall be immune from suit on
any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages. Del. Code Ami. tit 10, § 4011(a). While
there are exceptions to this broad grant of immunity, the complaint contains no hint that any of
the exceptions are applicable to the allegations against the Wilmington Police Department. Del.
Code Ann. tit 10, §§ 401 1(b), (c).
Therefore, the supplemental state negligence claim against the Wilmington Police
Department is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §
1915A(b)(1) on the basis of municipal immunity.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the claims against the Wilmington Police Department
are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).
3

Case 1:06-cv—00017-Gl\/IS Document 7 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 4 of 4
Ringgold is allowed to proceed against the remaining defendants on his excessive force claim.
An appropriate order will be entered.
UNI lED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
May , 2006
Wilmington, Delaware
4