United States District Court, D. Delaware
MARK RICHARD KOESTER, Plaintiff.
MARION RYAN, et al., Defendants.
Richard Koester, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown,
Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Ryan, Pro Se Defendant.
Nicholas Robert Wynn, Esquire, White & Williams,
Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Connections
Community Service Group.
NOREIKA U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Mark Richard Koester ("Koester"), an inmate at
Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI") in
Georgetown, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. (D.I. 1). He also raises supplemental
state claims. Plaintiff appears pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I.
7). Before the Court is Connections Community Support
Programs, Inc.'s and the unidentified medical staffs
(collectively, the "Medical Defendants'7) motion to
dismiss and Plaintiffs request for counsel. (D.I.
15, 25). Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss. (D.I. 19).
Court screened the Complaint on May 18, 2017, identified
cognizable and non-frivolous clams, and issued a service
order. (D.I. 10). Named Defendants include Marion Ryan
("Ryan"), Connections Community Service Group
("Connections"), and unnamed medical providers and
nurses from December 2013 through April 2016. (D.I. 1). The
Medical Defendants move for dismissal on the grounds that the
Complaint: (1) fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of
Twombly and Iqbal; (2) fails to state a
claim of deliberate indifferent to serious medical needs; (3)
fails to plead that Connections maintained a policy, practice
or custom that caused the alleged deliberate indifference to
a serious medical need; and (4) Plaintiff failed to submit an
affidavit to support the medical negligence claim.
initially stated that it had no record of an employee or
former employee named Marion Ryan. (D.I. 15 at 1). However,
after reviewing submissions by Plaintiff and further
investigation, Connections determined that Marion Ryan is
Louise Marion Ryan. Medical Defendants move for Ryan's
dismissal on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a
claim against her and she was not properly served. (D.I. 20).
reviewing a motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the
court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as
true and take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (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, 551 U.S. at 94. A court may consider the
pleadings, public record, orders, exhibits attached to the
complaint, and documents incorporated into the complaint by
reference. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights,
Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion
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 complainant, 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).
'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) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court
is "not required to credit bald assertions or legal
conclusions improperly alleged in the complaint." In
re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d
198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed,
however, "for imperfect statement of the legal theory
supporting the claim asserted." Johnson v. City of
Shelby, 135 S.Ct. 346, 346 (2014).
complainant must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim
has "substantive plausibility." Id. at
347. That plausibility must be found on the face of the
complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
[complainant] pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the [accused] is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. 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. at