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

Case 1:08-cv—O0O45-SLR Document 5 Filed O4/16/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HARRY T. COLLINS, )
Plaintiff, ;
v. g Civ. No. 08-045-SLR
NEW CASTLE COUNTY POLICE g
DEPARTMENT and OFFICER )
BECKMAN, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this lcfgay of April, 2008, having screened the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915;
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for the reasons that
follow;
1. Background. Plaintiff Harry Collins filed this civil rights action alleging
defamation of character due to discrimination, apparently pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(D.l. 2) He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Standard of Review. When a litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 provides for dismissal under certain circumstances. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)
provides 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).

Case 1:08-cv—00O45-SLR Document 5 Filed O4/16/2008 Page 2 of 4
3. In performing the court’s screening function under§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the court
applies the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Fullman v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:07CV-000079, 2007 WL 257617 (l\/l.D. Pa.
Jan. 25, 2007) (citing Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7*** Cir. 2000). The court
must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, —U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007);
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). A complaint must contain "'a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to reIief,’ in order to
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests."’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, —U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting ;
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
4. A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, however, "a plaintiffs
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do." Q at 1965 (citations omitted). The "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the allegations in
the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." g (citations omitted). Plaintiff is
required to make a "showing" ratherthan a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief.
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). "[W]ithout some
factual allegation inthe complaint, a claimant cannot satisfy the requirement that he or
she provide not only "fair notice," but also the "grounds" on which the claim rests. g
(citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 n.3). Therefore, "‘stating . . . a claim requires a
2

Case 1:08-cv—O0O45-SLR Document 5 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 3 of 4
complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest’ the required element."
lg at 235 (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 n.3). "This ‘does not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage,’ but instead ‘simply calls for enough facts
to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary
element" g at 234. Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally
construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, —U.S.—, 127
S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
5. Discussion. The complaint alleges as follows: On January 2, 2008, plaintiff
complained to the New Castle County Police Department that his nephew was stealing
from him and wanted his nephew to live somewhere else. He asked the police to speak
to his nephew. After a telephone conversation among the police officer, plaintiff,
plaintiff’s mother, and the nephew, defendant Officer Beckman ("Beckman") was
dispatched to plaintiffs home} Beckman spoke to all parties and proceeded to arrest
plaintiff for harassment. According to plaintiff, his psychological profile follows him and,
whenever he has contact with law enforcement and his named is entered into a
computer, he is arrested on the spot, "right or wrong."2 The complaint sues Beckman
and the New Castle County Police Department for defamation and seeks to have the
psychological profile removed from plaintiffs record, or other available options. The
‘PIaintiff resides in the home of his elderly mother.
2Plaintiff was taken to the New Castle County lookup, but was transferred to the
hospital due to a heart condition.
3

Case 1:08-cv—O0O45-SLR Document 5 Filed O4/18/2008 Page 4 of 4
complaint does not contain any other theories for recovery.3
8. Defamation. Plaintiff claims that defendants defamed him based upon a
psychological profile contained in computer records. Claims of defamation are not
cognizable under § 1983. Tort claims, such as defamation of character and slander, are
not properly included in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Daniels v. Williams,
474 U.S. 327, 332 (1988) (quoting Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 893, 701 (1978)) (“VVe have
previously rejected reasoning that ‘would make of the Fourteenth Amendment a font of
tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the
States."’ See also Hernandez v. Hunt, Civ. A. No. 89-4448, 1989 VVL 88834 (E.D. Pa.
Jun 18, 1989). The defamation claim is not cognizable under § 1983 and, therefore, is
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
7. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint is dismissed
for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Amendment ofthe complaint would be futile. §e__e Alston v. Parker, 383 F.3d 229 (3d
Cir. 2004); Grayson v. l\/layview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v.
City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1978).

3P|aintiff references discrimination in his complaint, but the complaint does not
suggest that plaintiff was treated differently from others with whom he is similarly
situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful
discrimination.
4

Case 1:08-cv-00045-SLR

Document 5

Filed 04/16/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00045-SLR

Document 5

Filed 04/16/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00045-SLR

Document 5

Filed 04/16/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00045-SLR

Document 5

Filed 04/16/2008

Page 4 of 4