United States District Court, D. Delaware
Kevin McNeill, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution,
Wilmington, Delaware; Pro Se Plaintiff.
Patrick Connell, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department
of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant
Warden Steven Wesley.
Spring Monzo, Esquire, and Karine Sarkisian, Esquire, White
and Williams, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Defendant
Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.
CONNOLLY, U.S. District Judge:
Dale Kevin McNeill ("Plaintiff'), an inmate at the
Howard R. Young Correctional Institution ("HRYCI")
in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 6)
The Court screened the complaint on December 2, 2016 and
identified cognizable and non-frivolous clams. (See D.I. 8)
Defendant Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.
("Defendant" or "Connections") moves for
dismissal and Plaintiff opposes. (D.I. 28, 30, 32) Briefing
on the matter is complete.
was assaulted by another inmate on May 17, 2015 and rushed to
the hospital for treatment. (D.I. 2 at 5) He alleges that
when he returned from the hospital instructions for his care
were given to the HRYCI medical department. (Id. at
7) Plaintiff was to receive continuing care for an ear injury
and follow-up care for a concussion he sustained as a result
of the assault. He alleges he has not received the required
care and had to submit medical grievances. (Id.)
moves for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
reviewing a motion to dismiss 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 maybe 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
seeks dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to
state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference.
It also contends that dismissal is appropriate because
Plaintiff does not allege that Connections maintained a