United States District Court, D. Delaware
Anthony Stevenson, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,
Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge
Anthony Stevenson, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. 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 (D.I. 3) and its amendment
(D.I. 10) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and
October 12, 2015, Plaintiff asked his work supervisor for
permission to leave so that he could go to the hospital to
receive an insulin injection. His supervisor refused, and
Plaintiff submitted a grievance. The grievance was denied.
Plaintiff appealed. A December 18, 2015 decision on appeal
determined to release Plaintiff from work during the
scheduled time for administration of the medication. The
decision was upheld by Bureau Chief Marc Richman.
December 22, 2015, Plaintiff was informed by a correctional
officer that Defendant Warden David Pierce had called the
building to take Plaintiff's work pass from him. Later,
Plaintiff discovered that it was Defendant Major Jeffrey
Carrothers who had called the building and given the orders
to take Plaintiff's work pass and terminate Plaintiff
from his job in the garment shop "because he was
unwilling to authorize [Plaintiff's] leaving the shop to
receive [his] insulin shot and for not having a G.E.D."
submitted a grievance on December 27, 2015, complaining of
Carrothers' actions. It was returned as unprocessed,
advising Plaintiff that he could be hired or fired with no
reasons given. Plaintiff submitted two additional grievances
and was told the same thing. A third party who inquired on
Plaintiffs behalf was told that Plaintiff was terminated from
a position in the kitchen after finding contraband from the
kitchen in Plaintiffs cell and that the incident complicated
reinstating Plaintiff to his position in the garment shop.
Plaintiff states that he was found guilty in the contraband
matter, appealed, and the finding of guilt was
"overturned/reversed with no further actions
taken." Plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of
willful and intentional disability discrimination on the part
of Carrothers, Delaware Correctional Industries, Mark
Pariseau, Edward Bowers, and the Delaware Department of
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) if "the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v.
Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see
also 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);
42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect
to prison conditions). 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. Phillips
v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir.
2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
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. at 94 (citations omitted).
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(1) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss
a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory" or a "clearly
baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual
scenario. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Wilson v.
Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3dCir. 1989).
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. Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to
state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). 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.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if,
accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as
true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations
"could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558
(2007). "Though 'detailed factual allegations'
are not required, a complaint must do more than simply
provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.'"
Daw's v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236,
241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555). In addition, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to
show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See
Johnson v. City of Shelby, U.S., 135 S.Ct. 346, 347
(2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect
statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.
See Id. at 346.
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court should
follow a three-step process: (1) consider the elements
necessary to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that are
merely conclusions and therefore are not well-pleaded factual
allegations; and (3) accept any well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and determine whether they plausibly
state a claim. See Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.,809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016); Williams v. BASF
Catalysts LLC,765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014).
Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a