Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00328—SLR Document 8 Filed 06/14/2005 Page1 of4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ERNEST A. CRUMP, JR., )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. O4-328-SLR
STAN TAYLOR, THOMAS CARROLL, g
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,)
JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, )
JOHN DOE #3 and JANE DOE #1, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this !#** day of June, 2005, having reviewed
plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint and amended
complaint survive review under 28 U.S.C. §§ l915(e){2)(B)-
l9l5A(b)(1) for the reasons that follow:
1. Having granting in forma pauperis on June I4, 2004
(D.I. 4), the court must now determine whether 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)—
19l5A(b)(l).* If plaintiff's complaint falls under any one of
‘These two statutes work in conjunction. Section
l9l5(e)(2)(B) authorizes the court to dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint at any time, if the court finds the complaint
is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief

Case 1:04-cv—00328—SLR Document 8 Filed 06/14/2005 Page 2 of 4
the exclusions, the complaint will be dismissed.
2. When reviewing complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)—1915A(b)(1), the court must apply the standard
of review provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Shane v.
Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 117 (3d Cir. 2000). According to the Third
Circuit, “if a claim is based on facts that provide no basis for
the granting of relief by the court, the claim must be
dismissed.” Id. The standard for determining whether an action
is frivolous is well established. The Supreme Court has
explained that a complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989)F
3. With this in mind, pro se complaints are reviewed under
“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if
it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief. Section 1915A(a) requires the court to screen
prisoner in forma pauperis complaints seeking redress from
governmental entities, officers or employees before docketing, if
feasible, and to dismiss those complaints falling under the
categories listed in § 1915A (b)(1).
2 Neitzke applied S 19l5(d) prior to the enactment of the
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). Section 1915
(e)(2)(B) is the re-designation of the former § 1915(d) under the
PLRA. Accordingly, cases addressing the meaning of frivolousness
under the prior section remain applicable. See § 804 of the
PLRA, Pub.L.No. 14-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996}.
2

Case 1:04-cv—00328—SLR Document 8 Filed 06/14/2005 Page 3 of 4
relief.'” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)(quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); accord Higgins v.
ggygr, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002).
4. Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were
violated on August 30, 2002, when he was transferred to the
Delaware Correctional Center and placed in a holding and
receiving cell for processing.’ (D.I. 2, 7) After an argument
with a correctional officer, plaintiff was transferred to the
infirmary and placed on a suicide watch. He was directed to
remove all of his clothing and remained naked in this cell for
five days.‘ He also was forced to use a toilet located in the
floor of the cell. He states that using the toilet was
humiliating and caused him to stop eating.
5. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651
(1977). While the Constitution does not require comfortable
prisons, it does not permit inhumane ones. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). To maintain an Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim, the plaintiff must establish
that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” that
deprived him of “the minimal civilized measure of life's
‘Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint, and filed his
proposed amended complaint, on July 9, 2004. (D.I. 6, 7)
‘Plaintiff indicates he was provided with two pieces of
paper towel to use as clothing.
3

Case 1:04-cv—00328—SLR Document 8 Filed 06/14/2005 Page 4 of 4
necessities." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99 (1991)
(quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). Under
contemporary standards of decency, incarceration of a naked
prisoner for several days in a dark, feces—smeared mental
observation cell, without any personal necessities, can rise to
an Eighth Amendment claim. Blissett v. Coughlin, 66 F.3d 531,
537 (2d Cir. 1995).
6. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) and (d)(2),
plaintiff shall submit to the court within thirty (30) days an
original United States Marshal—285 form for each of the
defendants. Failure to submit these forms may provide grounds
for dismissal of these defendants from this action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
6. Upon receipt of the completed United States Marshal—285
forms, the United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the signed
complaint and the amended complaint upon defendants as directed
by plaintiff. All costs of service shall be advanced by the
United States.
4

Case 1:04-cv-00328-SLR

Document 8

Filed 06/14/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00328-SLR

Document 8

Filed 06/14/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00328-SLR

Document 8

Filed 06/14/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00328-SLR

Document 8

Filed 06/14/2005

Page 4 of 4