United States District Court, D. Delaware
WAYNE T. GAMBLE, Plaintiff,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY, Defendant.
T. Gamble, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Wayne T. Gamble (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
on August 14, 2018. (D.I. 2) He appears pro se and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(D.I. 4) The Court proceeds to review and screen the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
alleges Defendant had an illegal court proceeding without his
presence when they “tried to rule him
incompetent.” Plaintiff alleges Delaware Superior Court
judges broke the law. He alleges that his name was on a
Met-Life insurance policy “just like he wrote I before
they committed a crime.” (D.I. 2)
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if Athe 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). 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, his pleading is liberally construed and his
Complaint, Ahowever inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations
action is frivolous if it Alacks 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), a
court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is Abased 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).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 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, the Court must grant a 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 Cir. 2002).
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.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though
“detailed factual allegations” are not required,
a complaint must do more than simply provide Alabels 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 be dismissed for imperfect statements of the legal
theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at
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 Ashow” 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 Acontext-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
claim against the Superior Court fails based upon its
immunity from suit. The Eleventh Amendment protects states
and their agencies and departments from suit in federal court
regardless of the kind of relief sought. See Pennhurst
State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100
(1984). “Absent a state's consent, the Eleventh
Amendment bars a civil rights suit in federal court that
names the state as a defendant.” Laskaris v.
Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1981) (citing
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)). Delaware has
not waived its immunity from suit in federal court; although
Congress can abrogate a ...