Free Order Dismissing Case (1915) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00972-KAJ Document 9 Filed 01/24/2006 Page1 of3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ALFRED TIMOTHY BRATTON, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. N0. 04-972-KAJ
STATE OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX g
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, and )
SUSSEX CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE,)
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Alfred Timothy Bratton ("Bratton") brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. He appears pro se and on September 3, 2004, was granted in forma
pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.|. 4). I now proceed to review and
screen the complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.
For the reasons discussed below, I am dismissing the complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and §1915A(b)(1).
I. THE COMPLAINT
The allegations in the complaint concern the delay of Bratton’s criminal trial in
Sussex County Superior Court. Bratton complains that he was not given a reason for
the continuance or rescheduling of the matter. In an attachment to the complaint
Bratton also alleges that he suffered "permanent water damage" and needs to see a
dermatologist for removal of a neck scar; he has not received photographs his fiance
mailed to him; and he has been defamed by the criminal charges brought against him
by the state. Bratton seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $15 million
dollars. I n

Case 1:04-cv—00972-KAJ Document 9 Filed 01/24/2008 Page 2 of 3
II. 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 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)(l3) 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 83, 85
(3d Cir. 1998)(citing Holder v. City ofAilentown, 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, 45-48 (1957)).
III. ANALYSIS
Aside from the fact that the complaint does not state a cognizable § 1983 claim,
Bratton’s complaint fails for the simple reason that all the defendants are immune from
suit for monetary damages. Bratton brings suit against the State of Delaware, the
Sussex County Superior Court and the Sussex Correctional Institute, an agency of the
State of Delaware. "Absent a state's consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars a civil
2

Case 1:04-cv—00972-KAJ Document 9 Filed 01/24/2006 Page 3 of 3
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 underthe
Eleventh Amendment. See Ospiria v. Dep'! of Corr., 749 F.Supp. 572, 579 (D.Del.
1991). Hence, the State of Delaware, the Sussex County Superior Court, and the
Sussex Correctional Institute, as an agency of the State of Delaware, all are entitled to
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See e.g. Evans v. Ford, C.A. No. 03-868-
KAJ, 2004 WL 2009362, *4 (D.Del. Aug. 25, 2004) (claim against DOC dismissed
because it is a state agency and it did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity).
Bratton‘s claims against these state defendants have no arguable basis in law or
in fact, inasmuch as the defendants are immune from suit. The complaint is frivolous
and I am dismissing it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A(b).
IV. CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 24‘“ day of January, 2006,
that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(2).
F g ji
at/#1-.` , · ai/Us
Ul IT I STA ES( lSTR/I/_ JUDGE
._zi
3