Free Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State Claim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00381-GIVIS Document 24 Filed 02/22/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Jonathan Dahms, Pro Se, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) C.A. N0. 04-381 (GMS)
CiviGenics, et al., )
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM
Defendant CiviGenics, Inc. ("CiviGenics") is a correctional services firm that has a contract
with the State of Delaware for the operation of an in—prison therapeutic community at Gander Hill
Correctional Facility. Referred to as the "Key North" program, this community provides "highly
structured living situations for persons sharing serious behavioral problems.” CiviGenics
Therapeutic Community, http://www.civigenics.com/therapeutic.aspx (last visited Feb. 8, 2006).
Defendants Harry Coyle, the program director, and Frank Coston, the program supervisor, are
employees ofCiviGenics. Plaintiffjonathan Dahms is a fonner Gander Hill inmate and participant
in the Key North program. On June I6, 2004, Dahms tiled a complaint in this court, pursuant to 42
U.S.C.A. § I983 (2003), against CiviGenics, Coyle, and Coston. (D.I. 2.) On August I I, 2005, the
defendants tiled a motion to dismiss. (D.I. 20.) For the following reasons, the court will grant the
defendants’ motion in part, and deny it in part.
Although the complaint chronicles Dahms’ overall experience in the Key North program, his
response to the motion to dismiss paints a somewhat clearer picture ofhow the defendants allegedly
acted to violate his rights. (D.I. 22.) Thus, the court will use that document as its primary guide.
In his response, Dahms claims, among other things, that he was subject to sleep deprivation and

Case 1:04-cv—00381-Gl\/IS Document 24 Filed 02/22/2006 Page 2 of 4
humiliation by fellow inmates at the direction of Coyle and Coston.
As a threshold matter, this court has held on at least one other occasion that CiviGenics and
its employees (insofar as they are sued in their official capacities), as state actors, are shielded hom
suit by the Eleventh Amendment. Hamilton v. CiviGenics, No. 03-826-GMS, 2005 WL 418023, at
*4-*5 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2005). The court perceives no reason to stray ii-Om that holding in this case,
and therefore, the defendants’ motion will be granted as to CiviGenics. Regarding Coyle and
Coston, they attempt to invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity as well by arguing that Dahms did
not sue them in their personal capacities because he failed to allege that they personally acted to
violate his rights. The court is not convinced. Although the harassment and sleep deprivation are
alleged to have occurred at the hands of supervising inmates, the complaint states that the inmates
were acting "at the direction of CiviGenics staff." (D.I. 2 at 7 (labeled as page 3 ofthe "Statement
of Claims").) Moreover, the only staffmembers named in the complaint are Coyle and Coston. In
the spirit ofliberal pleading, the court believes Dahms intended to imply that the supervising inmates
were acting at the direction of Coyle and Coston. Lest there be any doubt, Dahms’ response to the
defendants’ motion to dismiss explicitly alleges that the humiliation and sleep deprivation he
suffered was "at the direction of’ Coyle and Coston. (D.I. 22 at I.) Thus, Coyle and Coston cannot
invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The defendants also argue that Dahrns’ complaint is barred by a provision in the Prison
Litigation Refonn Act, which states:
No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail,
prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in
custody without a prior showing of physical injury.
42 U.S.C.A. § l997e(e) (2003). However, inMitchel/ v. Horn, the Third Circuit held that § l997e(e)
2

Case 1:04-ev—00381-Gl\/IS Document 24 Filed 02/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
applies to claims for compensatory damages, but not to claims for nominal or punitive damages. 318
F.3d 523, 533 (3d Cir. 2003). Further, section l997e(e) does not apply to claims seeking injunctive
or declaratory relief. Ic/. at 533-34. Thus, Dahm’s complaint is not barred by § l997e(e) as the
defendants suggest.
As to the substance ofthe complaint, the defendants contend that harassment alone does not
give rise to a constitutional violation. Even if they are correct, Dahms does not allege harassment
alone. Rather, he alleges harassment and sleep deprivation (and more), which, depending on the
severity, could rise to the level of a constitutional violation. /’/1/I/ips v. /~‘ar·/tar, No. Ol-5l6—JJF,
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95ll, at *l—*3 (D. Del. 3/lay 20, 2004). Therefore, the motion must be
denied as to Coyle and Ceston.
February -27;. 2006
Ur TED ATES IST TJUDG
F \ L E DI
ISTFUCT COUFALE
DQ; QC-{ or oemw
3

Case 1:04-cv—00381-G|\/IS Document 24 Filed 02/22/2006 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Jonathan Dahms, Pm Se, )
)
Plaintiff; )
)
v. ) CA N0. 04-381 (GMS)
)
CiviGenics, ez cz/., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT;
The defendzmts’ motion t0 dismiss (D1. 20) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in pam.
Dated: February $7- , 2006 _ ,
UNI ST TES ISTR TJUDGE
F I L E D
FE B I 7* I ’j
u. ,
¤.S$¤i’§$E*!%LEE$E£E

Case 1:04-cv-00381-GMS

Document 24

Filed 02/22/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00381-GMS

Document 24

Filed 02/22/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00381-GMS

Document 24

Filed 02/22/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00381-GMS

Document 24

Filed 02/22/2006

Page 4 of 4