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. Hyde

United States District Court, D. Delaware

February 5, 2018

DAVID A. ALLEMANDI, a/k/a Hermione Kelly Ivy Winter, Plaintiff,
v.
HYDE, et al., Defendants.

          David A. Allemandi, a/k/a Hermione Kelly Ivy Winter, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK U.S. JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff David A. Allemandi, a/k/a Hermione Kelly Ivy Winter ("Plaintiff')[1], an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[2] (D.I. 2) She appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 7) The Court proceeds to review and screen the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and§1915A(a).

         II. BACKGROUND

         On April 9, 2014, Plaintiff pled guilty to second degree rape and continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Allemandi v. State, No. 549, 2015 (Del.) at BL-36 (appendix containing State v. Allemandi, CRA # S13-09-0783 thru 0788, ID No. 1308015125, Apr. 9, 2014 plea agreement, Apr. 9, 2014 change of plea transcript, Apr. 10, 2014 sentencing transcript). Plaintiff, who is a participant in the Transitions Sex Offenders Program, alleges that the program violates her Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

         She alleges that participation in the program is mandatory and requires mandatory disclosure of information regarding past behavior, including past convictions and uncharged offenses. She also alleges that, because the information disclosed does not remain confidential, this encourages rape, physical abuse, mental abuse, triggers "to reoffend, " and "fear for life." (D.I. 2 at 6) Plaintiff alleges that any uncharged offense disclosed involving a minor is reported to Child Protective Services or law enforcement. In addition, other information such as personal or medical information is provided, without consent, to probation, the parole board, and the court.

         Plaintiff alleges that when an inmate does not provide information sought by Defendant Hyde ("Hyde"), Director of Transitions, the inmate is punished or kicked out of the program. When this happens, the inmate will do more time, lose all good time, receive a class one write-up, go through a lengthy "unwinnable" disciplinary process, and be sanctioned through a change in housing assignment. Once the inmate has completed the sanction, he is forced back into the program and the process begins anew.

         Plaintiff also alleges that Matthew Dutton ("Dutton") returned all her complaints and grievances with no further action, VCC Warden Dana Metzger ("Metzger") did not investigate and failed to act, as sex offender counselor Klein ("Klein") acknowledged, but refused to address the issues, and that all Defendants approved of the program and were aware of Plaintiffs complaints.

         Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of "removal of the program from the state prison due to the environment; on street program in place mandatory upon release." (Id. at 8)

          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 § 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." Bail v. Famiglio 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Or. 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. § 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. 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, her pleading is liberally construed and her 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)® 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 at 327-28; see also Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); Deutsch 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 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See 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 ...


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.