Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allemandi v. Mills

United States District Court, D. Delaware

August 7, 2017

DAVID A. ALLEMANDI, a/k/a June Woods, a/k/a Abdullah Abdullah Al-Faruq Abdullah, Plaintiff,
v.
MONICA MILLS, M.D. and DEDRA PARKER, M.D., Defendants.

          David A. AUemandi, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff David A. Allemandi ("Plaintiff), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights.[1] (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).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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)

         III. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A 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).

         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). 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).

         The 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 Or. 2002).

         A 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.

         Under 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.

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.