United States District Court, D. Delaware
DEVIN L. COLEMAN, Plaintiff,
OFFICER MICHAEL Q. STANFORD and OFFICER KRISTENE M. BRADY-DOWNES, Defendants.
L. Coleman, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
CONNOLLY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Devin L. Coleman ("Plaintiff'), an inmate at the
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("JTVCC") in
Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (D.I. 3) Plaintiff appears pro se
and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (D.I. 5) He also seeks injunctive relief.
(D.I. 7) The Court proceeds to review and screen the matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and §
has a painful light sensitivity eye condition that requires
darkening glasses. Plaintiff alleges that on May 16, 2018,
Connections, the medical service provider at the JTVCC,
issued a medical memo prescribing Plaintiff's indoor use
of sunglasses purchased from the prison commissary. (D.I. 3
at 5) The memo was issued April 16, 2018 and expired April
16, 2019. (Id.) The medical memo was forwarded to
security staff and signed by the JTVCC deputy warden.
September 12, 2018, Plaintiff was issued a disciplinary
report for violation of the dress code. (Id.) A
hearing was held and Plaintiff was found guilty.
(Id.) Plaintiff appealed and the guilty finding was
reversed on the basis that "inmate has medical memo for
solar shields." (Id. at 5)
March 25, 2019,  Defendant Correctional Officer Kristene M.
Brady-Downes ("Brady-Downes") issued Plaintiff a
disciplinary report for lying and failing to obey an order
for wearing commissary sunglasses indoors. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that he explained that he had two medical
memos; one issued October 19, 2018 for solar shields provided
by Connections and one for wearing commissary sunglasses due
to extreme light sensitivity. (Id.) Brady-Downes
allegedly called Nurse Amy who told Brady-Downes there was no
memo for Plaintiff to wear commissary sunglasses.
(Id.) Plaintiff was found guilty and his sunglasses
were seized. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he was in pain
from the fluorescent lights located throughout the prison.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was taken to an eye
doctor in 2019 and doctors ordered the continuation of
frequent eyedrops and wearing shades at all times.
April 1, 2019, Plaintiff received a disciplinary write-up
from Defendant Correctional Officer Michael Q. Stanford
("Stanford") for wearing sunglasses. (Id.)
When Stanford asked Plaintiff to remove the sunglasses,
Plaintiff explained they were prescribed by medical and
Stanford again told Plaintiff to remove the glasses.
(Id.) Another officer told Stanford that Plaintiff
had a medical memo and Nurse Amy specifically told Stanford
that Plaintiff had a medical memo for the wearing of
commissary sunglasses that did not expire until April 16,
2019. (Id. at 6-7). Stanford ordered Plaintiff to
remove the glasses and told Plaintiff he was writing him up.
(Id. at 7).
alleges that he has two medical memos for solar shields, but
he uses the commissary shades because they make things darker
than the solar shields provided by medical. (Id.) He
alleges that both Defendants knew of the medical memos and
both had access to medical staff and the shared medical
drive. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he pleaded with
both Defendants not to write him up due to the fact that he
would no longer be able to wear glasses without continually
receiving write-ups for violation of prison rules.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants wanted to cause
him pain. (Id.)
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 8)
SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
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