United States District Court, D. Delaware
FREDERICK W. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff,
CONNECTIONS CSP, INC., et al., Defendants.
Frederick W. Smith, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,
Smyrna, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Andrews, U.S. District Judge.
Frederick W. Smith, Jr., 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). He
requests counsel. (D.I. 6). The Court proceeds to screen the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and
alleges that "something is wrong" with his left
shoulder, and the treatment provided has made the condition
worse. Plaintiff alleges that one of the providers issued a
consult for Plaintiff to undergo an ultrasound, and Plaintiff
was told that the ultrasound was not available to him.
Plaintiff seeks 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 (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.3d103, 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
as a defendant is White and Williams, counsel for Connections
CSP, Inc. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege "the violation of a right secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must
show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law." West v.
Atkins,487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To act under "color
of state law" a defendant must be "clothed with the
authority of state law." Id. at 49. White and
Williams is a law firm which represents Connections. This
Defendant is not "clothed with the authority of state
law." See ...