Free Memorandum Opinion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00327-Gl\/IS Document 17 Filed 09/20/2005 Page 1 of 3 H
II
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE [
JOSEPH T. VINCENT, II, Pro Se, ) [ '{
l E
Plaintiff ) I
’ l
v. ) C.A. No. 04-327 (GMS) i
)
CATHY COLONNA, and ) F I L E I.
T.A.S.C. OF DELAWARE, ) _ I I
> wlllatri .
Defendants. ) j
u.s. oismicr co
MEMQRANDUM oisrmcr OF DELA
Plaintiff J oseph T. Vincent, H, pro se, filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S. .
§ 1983 (2003). Presently before the court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (D.I. 13.) For nj
following reasons, the court will grant the motion, and dismiss the complaint. ]
On April 26, 2002, while Vincent was working on a house in a probation-like setting as p
ofthe State of Delaware’s T.A.S.C. (Treatment Access Center) drug treatment program, he
allegedly shot in the left foot with a three—and-a-half inch nail. (D.I. 2 at 6.) Vincent also alle
that he subsequently underwent an X-ray examination, he was given a tetanus shot, and he
prescribed narcotic pain medication} (Id.) However, his T.A.S.C. case manager, defendant Cat y
Colonna, told him that if he took any narcotic medication, "she would throw [his] ass in jail." (I r .)
ll
On May 21, 2002, Vincent took his grievance to Judge Henley Graves of the Delaware Supe =:‘Q¤
Court, who told him that "even if the Surgeon General himself, wrote me [Vincent] a prescripti n
for pain medication, that ifI took one pill, he would put me in [jail] that very same night." (I .)
Vincent argues that, by denying him narcotic pain medication, Colonna violated his Ei t
’Although Vincent’s complaint does not explicitly allege that he was prescribed narcoti '
pain medication, he certainly implies that he was. j

Case 1:04-cv-00327-Gl\/IS Document 17 Filed 09/20/2005 Page 2 of 3 il. I
I
Amendment rights. (Id.) {I
To the extent that Vincent is suing T.A.S.C. of Delaware, and Colonna in her professio 1
capacity, neither one is a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep 't 0f State Poli nr
491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). To the extent that Vincent is suing Colonna in her personal capacity,
would have been legally incompetent to incarcerate Vincent for using narcotic drugs. See Del. C • e
Ann. tit. 11, § 6502 (2001) ("The Department [of Corrections] shall accept custody of all pers s
committed to it by courts of competent j urisdiction." (emphasis added)). Even if Colonna had e
power to detain Vincent in some other manner, he fails to allege that she actually did so. Moreov |r,
given the comments of Judge Graves, Colonna was clearly acting in accordance with the directi s
of the Delaware Superior Court. As such, she enjoys the protections of j udicial immunity from s _it
under § 1983. See Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 127 (3d Cir. 2001) (judicial immunity extend - o
persons "act[ing] as ‘arms ofthe c0urt’ and perform[ing] functions integral to the judicial proces ).
Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
’ ._._. .
· .. . a — - . l-lag ill if- "Y
Dated: September 2005 _ ~; _ J' - _
“" " " ‘“i = ‘‘‘’ · ff `ESL- =· {F3-Jli —- —- ‘
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 I
lII I

Case 1:04-cv-00327-Gl\/IS Document 17 Filed 09/20/2005 Page 3 of 3 [
I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT `
FOR·THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE I
JOSEPH T. VINCENT, II, Pro Se, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 04-327 (GMS)
)
CATHY COLONNA, and )
T.A.S.C. OF DELAWARE, ) I
> I
Defendants. ) \
ORDER `
ITIS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The defendants’ motion to dismiss (D.I. 13) be GRANTED;
2. The plaintiffs motion for leave to amend (D.I. 15) be DENIED as moot;
3. The plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (D.I. 16) be DENIED as moot; and
4. The complaint be DISMISSED on all counts.
Dated: September 2005 ,. I __ ,__._;`i" "
T ·‘7 ES D Tmc 7 •
I

Case 1:04-cv-00327-GMS

Document 17

Filed 09/20/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00327-GMS

Document 17

Filed 09/20/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00327-GMS

Document 17

Filed 09/20/2005

Page 3 of 3