United States District Court, D. Delaware
Edward Dorman, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown,
Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Alan Edward Dorman, an inmate at the Sussex Correctional
Institution in Georgetown, Delaware, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 3). He appears pro
se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (D.i. 5). The Court screens and reviews the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
injured his finger on August 15, 2016 while playing
basketball at SCI. He submitted a sick call clip and received
treatment a few days later. The pain and swelling worsened
and Plaintiff submitted another sick call slip. He was seen
by a nurse who referred Plaintiff to a "medical
provider." Several weeks passed before Plaintiff was
seen by Defendant Dr. Curtis Harris who ordered an x-ray and
prescribed Tramadol for pain. Plaintiff refused to take the
medication after a few days because he is a recovering
addict. Several weeks passed without action by the medical
submitted a medical grievance on October 6, 2016, complained
that he had been waiting for over three weeks for an x-ray,
and explained that his finger was possibly broken and might
need surgery. Plaintiff was x-rayed a couple of weeks later.
Several days after that he received x-ray results in the
mail, which indicated there was no damage to his finger.
However, his finger was swollen, he had pain and discomfort,
and could not straighten the finger or grip with it.
submitted another medical grievance on November 11, 2016. The
grievance was upheld with instructions for SCI medical to
ensure that consultation orders were implemented in a timely
manner. Soon thereafter, Plaintiff was taken to an outside
surgical center and x-rayed. The x-rayed revealed a fracture
and ligament damage that had healed. Physical therapy was
ordered but discontinued after several sessions because there
was no improvement.
alleges Dr. Harris was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs in delaying treatment and failing to
order or delaying a consult with an outside specialist. He
alleges Defendant Jill Moser, SCI Medical Director, was
deliberately indifferent by denying and delaying a
consultation to an outside specialist. Plaintiff alleges
former SCI warden G.R. Johnson was deliberately indifferent
in failing to ensure the medical contract provider abided by
its contract to provide adequate care. Finally, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Connections Community Support
Programs, Inc. was deliberately indifferent in failing to
take steps to ensure that Plaintiff received needed
seeks declaratory relief as well as compensatory and punitive
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).
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)(i) 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 (3d Cir. 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). 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
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544
(2007). 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 be dismissed, ...