United States District Court, D. Delaware
Eyster, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Daniel Eyster, 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. 3).
Plaintiff appears pro se and has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 5). The Court
screened and reviewed the Complaint, dismissed it, and gave
Plaintiff leave to amend. He filed an Amended Complaint on
May 13, 2019. (D.I. 10). The Court proceeds to screen the
Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
and § 1915A(a).
alleges he has a serous life-threatening medical condition
with his bowels and, for the past three years, his toilet
problems have been ignored. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") does not
want to send money to have him seen by an outside doctor.
(D.I. 10 at 2). Plaintiff wishes to undergo a colonoscopy so
that he may be properly diagnosed and treated.
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. 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
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
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; 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) and §
1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when
ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). 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 and 1915A,
the Court must grant 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
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that
a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City
of Shelby, 574 U.S.10 (2014). A complaint may not
dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal
theory supporting the claim asserted. See Id. at 10.
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, assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787
(3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the
facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is
entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). 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
Amendment. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are
barred by the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity.
See MCI Telecom. Corp. v. Bell Atl. of Pa., 271 F.3d
491, 503 (3d Cir. 2001). Defendant is a state agency.
Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects
a nonconsenting state or state agency from a suit brought in
federal court by one of its own citizens, regardless of the
relief sought. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman,465 U.S. 89 (1984); Edelman v.
Jordan,415 U.S. 651 (1974). Delaware has not waived its
immunity from suit in federal court. Although Congress can
abrogate a state's sovereign immunity, it did not do so
through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Brooks-McCollum v. Delaware,213 Fed.Appx. 92, 94 (3d
Cir. 2007). In addition, dismissal is proper because
Defendant is not ...