United States District Court, D. Delaware
Kamilla Denise London, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,
Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
NOREIKA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Kamilla Denise London (“Plaintiff), an inmate at the
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (“VCC”) in
Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.(D.I. 2). She appears pro se and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(D.I. 5, 7). She has filed a motion to amend pleading and a
motion for an extension of time to amend her pleadings. (D.I.
4, 9). The Court proceeds to review and screen the matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and §
is a transgender woman. She submitted a grievance against
Defendant Officer Brett Evans (“Evans”) claiming
that Evans had violated her right to privacy. (D.I. 2 at 5).
The day before she submitted the grievance, Plaintiff spoke
to her building supervisor and area lieutenant about the
incident and expressed her concerns that Evans would
retaliate “to get back at Plaintiff for [her] grievance
against Defendant Evans.” (Id.). Approximately
one week later Evans told Plaintiff that he was going to
“get [her] back for snitching on me.”
days after Evans threatened retaliation, Defendant Lt. Justin
Atherholt (“Atherholt”) berated Plaintiff about
her state ID and asked Plaintiff why she had submitted a
grievance against Evans. (Id.). Atherholt told
Plaintiff that she should not have submitted the grievance
and that she had “just caused problems for yourself.
You gotta remember that your kind is hated here.”
(Id.). Atherholt told Plaintiff to “get
out.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that she took
Atherholt's words as a threat and that Plaintiff would
face some sort of retaliation. (Id.). Plaintiff
submitted a second grievance. (Id.).
March 18, 2019, Evans filed charges against Plaintiff for
sexual misconduct and other offenses after Plaintiff hugged
and kissed her biological brother. (Id. at 7). Evans
had told Plaintiff that he was going to write her up.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Evans made several
misrepresentations regarding the events that led to the
hour later Plaintiff was called out by Atherholt to receive a
formal copy of the charge and for a preliminary hearing on
the charges. (Id.). Following a verbal exchange,
Plaintiff told Atherholt that she was not going through with
the hearing because of Atherholt's disrespect and
inappropriate comments and Atherholt told Plaintiff that if
she did not sign the writeup he would “tack on more
charges for being uncooperative.” (Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that due to the threat she signed the
alleges that Defendants Warden Dana Metzger
(“Metzger”), Bureau Chief Shane Troxler
(“Troxler”), and Commissioner Perry Phelps
(“Phelps”) “are at partial fault here for
maintaining policies and practices which led up to this
incident, as well as for maintaining and enforcing
disciplinary charges that are unconstitutionally overbroad,
vague, and ambiguous.” (Id. at 8).
seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages.
(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, her
pleading is liberally construed and her 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