United States District Court, D. Delaware
Petty, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington,
Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Julian Petty, an inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution in Wilmington, 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 screens and reviews
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)
completed the Headstart Program that he alleges opened an
opportunity for him to be classified as a Level 5 inmate or a
mandatory worker completing his sentence at the Plummer
Community Corrections Center in Wilmington, Delaware. On
October 18, 2018, Dr. August, the head of mental health at
the HYRCI examined Plaintiff. Plaintiff was also seen by
Defendant Ms. Mosley, a counselor at Plummer who asked him a
few questions. Plaintiff alleges that several counselors from
the Headstart Program also spoke to Plaintiff, and they gave
a good report as to his abilities. Plaintiff alleges that
Mosley told Plaintiff he would have to meet with
Plummer's Warden, Defendant Carole Evans. Plaintiff
waited for about an hour and was again seen by Mosley who
told Plaintiff he would need a mental health evaluation
before anything else could transpire.
was taken back to the HYRCI. Upon his return, Dr. Gen, a
mental health physician, looked through Plaintiffs chart and
saw the evaluation that Dr. August had performed. Dr. Gen
advised Plaintiff she would make some telephone calls to
determine why he had been wrongfully returned to the HYRCI.
He was housed on a pod at the HRYCI "notorious for being
a trouble maker housing area."
alleges that Defendants lied about the necessity for
Plaintiff to undergo a mental health evaluation. Plaintiff
alleges that being lied to and moved around under false
pretenses violated his constitutional rights and left him
with a constant feeling of being unsafe.
seeks an injunction to return him for a case review as well
as compensatory damages.
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).
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.
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 (3dCir. 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 Const. 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)). ...