United States District Court, D. Delaware
CHAZ A. SMITH, Plaintiff,
CONNECTIONS CSP INC., Defendant.
A. Smith, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution,
Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Connolly, U.S. District Judge.
Chaz A. Smith ("Plaintiff'), an inmate at the Howard
R. Young Correctional Institution ("HRYCI") in
Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendant Connections CSP Inc.
("Defendant"). (D.I. 3) Plaintiff appears pro
se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (D.I. 4) The Court proceeds to review and
screen the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)
and § 1915A(a).
alleges that in early January 2017, he developed a blister on
his elbow and by February it had burst and become an open
sore. (D.I. 3 at 6) A nurse provided him treatment after he
had made seven requests for medical attention. (Id.)
His condition continued to worsen despite six weeks of
2017, after a lab culture was performed, Plaintiff was
diagnosed with MERSA. (Id.) Plaintiff was prescribed
an antibiotic regimen. (Id.) He alleges that medical
mismanaged the doses he was prescribed and administered less
than prescribed doses. (Id.) In July 2017, Plaintiff
was sent to the hospital for treatment and surgery was
performed. (Id.) He alleges the surgeon told him
that Defendant's staff had failed to properly treat the
seven day hospital stay, Plaintiff returned to the HYRCI and
started a six week antibiotic regimen via a PICC line.
(Id.) On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff developed a fever
and chills. (Id.) Medical staff administered a
different antibiotic. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges it was
not properly administered because medical staff had
difficulty getting the IV machine to operate properly, (/of.)
He alleges that medical staff failed to follow his
surgeon's instruction to properly care for the PICC line
and, particularly, that medical staff refused to clean the
area around the PICC line or replace bandages in timely
manner. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that medical staff
allowed 21 days to pass when the procedure calls for bandage
replacements no more than seven days apart. (Id.)
alleges that due to negligence, he has lost 25 percent use of
his right arm strength from the surgical bone removal.
(Id.) He seeks compensatory damages in the sum of
one million dollars resulting from Connections'
negligence. (Id. at 9)
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);
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, 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 (citations
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; 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
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 can be granted pursuant to the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§1915 and 1915A, 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 "labels and
conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Davisv.
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 ...