Kenneth V. Stewart, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff Kenneth V. Stewart, an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 5). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(b) and§1915A(a).
On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff completed his Level V sentence and, on February 28, 2012, he reported to probation/parole in New Castle, Delaware and began serving a Level III supervised conditional release sentence until July 14, 2013. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff was arrested by the Wilmington Police Department and charged with aggravated possession of heroin, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, carrying a concealed deadly weapon, possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, possession of a stolen firearm, and conspiracy 2d degree. (D.I. 2, ex. B). As a result, Plaintiff was alleged to have violated his conditions of release.
On January 15, 2013, Plaintiff waived his preliminary hearing for violation of probation/parole. (Id.) On July 2, 2013, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant David Henderson, chairman of the Delaware Board of Parole. Plaintiff advised Henderson that his sentence would expire on July 14, 2013 and that there had been no violation hearing or a notice of conditional release discharge. Plaintiff submitted a grievance on July 15, 2013, regarding his sentence end date and the failure of Henderson to respond to his letter.
On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff called the Bureau of Prison regarding his sentence and, because he was incarcerated, asked the person he spoke with to communicate with his daughter. That day, Plaintiff was taken to isolation. A disciplinary hearing was held on July 29, 2013, before Defendant Brian Burger. At that time, Plaintiff was informed that he had been sent to isolation because he had telephoned the Bureau of Prison. Burger telephoned the records department at Howard Young and was informed that Plaintiff had yet to appear before the Board of Parole for his violation. Plaintiff was advised by Burger that he should not telephone the Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiff was then returned Plaintiff to the general population.
As of August 15, 2013, Plaintiff had yet to receive a notice for his appearance. He seeks compensatory damages for his pain and suffering and lost wages.
As of today's date, Plaintiff is still incarcerated. Thus, it appears the injury for which he seeks redress is being in isolation from July 22 to 29, 2013.
This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time, certain in forma pauperis and prisoner actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§1915 and 1915A, the Court must grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d103, 114(3dCir. 2002).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court conducts a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal elements of a claim are separated. Id. The Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id. at 210-11.
Second, the Court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "plausible claim for relief." Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief; rather, it must "show" such an entitlement with its facts. Id. A claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
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, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The allegations against Henderson do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. At most, Plaintiff alleges that Henderson did not respond to his letter. However, the failure of prison officials to respond to letters is not a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993) (summary judgment properly granted to prison warden and state commissioner of corrections, the only allegation against whom was that they failed to respond to letters from prisoner complaining of prison doctor's treatment decisions); Ransome v. Mooney, 2010 WL 2490751, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2010) ("a mere 'allegation that an official ignored a ...