United States District Court, D. Delaware
DAVID A. ALLEMANDI, a/k/a June Woods, a/k/a Abdullah Abdullah Al-Faruq Abdullah, Plaintiff,
MONICA MILLS, M.D. and DEDRA PARKER, M.D., Defendants.
A. AUemandi, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
U.S. District Judge
David A. Allemandi ("Plaintiff), filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. (D.I. 2) Plaintiff, who appears pro
se, is incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center ("VCC) in Smyrna, Delaware and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 6, 9) The
Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § l9l5A(a).
seeks testing, treatment, and a special diet for his medical
conditions. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff was promised that he
would be seen by a physician. At some point, he was seen by a
nurse, who referred Plaintiff to a physician. Later, on
August 17, 2016, he was seen by Defendant, Dr. Dedra Parker
("Dr. Parker"). Dr. Parker ordered blood tests. It
appears that Plaintiff believes additional tests should have
been ordered. Plaintiff spoke to a nurse the next week and
complained of gastrointestinal issues.
submitted a medical grievance and regular grievance regarding
a medical diet. On September 19, 2016, the medical
grievance's resolution was to refer Plaintiff to a
dietitian. Plaintiff submitted a sick call slip on September
21, 2016 and was seen by a nurse on September 22, 2016. The
nurse informed Plaintiff that he had emailed the dietitian
several times regarding the special diet. The nurse also told
Plaintiff that the average wait time to see a physician was
well over a month. Plaintiff alleges that he is being
"forced to suffer untreated while they take their time
deciding when they want to treat" him. (D.I. 2 at 8) He
seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief to prevent
Defendants "from not providing temporary relief and aid
while" he waits to be tested, diagnosed, and treated for
his medical issues. (Id. at 12)
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § l9l5A(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.
Famglio, 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 governmental defendant); 42
U.S.C. § l997e (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. See 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, Ms pleading is liberally
construed and his Complaint, "however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 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)(i) and § l9l5A(b)(1), a court may dismiss
a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an
indisputably meridess legal theory" or a "clearly
baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual
scenario. Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; see also
Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir.
1989); Deuisch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080,
1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit alleging
that prison officials took an inmate's pen and refused to
give it back).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii) and §
l9l5A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when
deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscherp.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Or. 1999) (applying
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to
state 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 a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint
unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See
Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d
complaint may be dismissed 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." BellA.il. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). While "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." Davis v. Abington
Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
See Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306,
315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Finally, 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 for
imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim
asserted. See Id. at 346.
the pleading regime established by Twombly and
Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the
elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2)
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and
(3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d
Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts
in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is
entitled to relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679
(citing Fed. R. Civ, P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is
plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense." Id.