Carter v. James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr., Civ. No. 15-565-SLR

Citation134 F.Supp.3d 794
Decision Date29 September 2015
Docket NumberCiv. No. 15-565-SLR
Parties Jermaine L. Carter, Plaintiff, v. James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (DOC), Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Delaware

Jermaine L. Carter, Smyrna, DE, pro se.

MEMORANDUM

SUE L. ROBINSON

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1. Introduction. Plaintiff Jermaine L. Carter ("plaintiff"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming violations of his constitutional rights.1 (D.I. 2, 7, 13) He also moves for leave to amend, requests counsel, and moves to compel discovery. (D.I. 8, 11, 12)

2. Standard of Review. A 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, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (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, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (citations omitted).

3. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."

Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)

. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 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 at 327–28, 109 S.Ct. 1827 ; Wilson v. Rackmill , 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir.1989) ; see, e.g., Deutsch v. United States , 67 F.3d 1080, 1091–92 (3d Cir.1995).

4. The 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) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B) ). 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 §§ 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 Cir.2002).

5. A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)

; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347, 190 L.Ed.2d 309 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 346. When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps: "(1) identify[ ] the elements of the claim, (2) review[ ] the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) look[ ] at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluat[e] whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged." Malleus v. George , 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir.2011). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (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 sense." Id.

6. Discussion. Plaintiff raises several distinct claims: (1) the business office miscalculated and deducted the wrong amount of money from his prison account when making partial filing fee payments; (2) he is illegally electronically monitored through a "microwave hearing effect eavesdropping device"; (3) an electronic control device is utilized inside his body for no medical purpose "with medical malpractice"; (4) his food is contaminated; (5) the reception is poor on his clear tunes digital television channels; and (6) he has received false disciplinary reports. (D.I. 2, 7, 13) In addition, plaintiff moves to add a claim that he is not allowed to purchase canteen from the commissary. (D.I. 11) Plaintiff names the VCC as the sole defendant and seeks injunctive relief.

7. Eleventh Amendment. The VCC falls under the umbrella of the Delaware Department of Correction, an agency of the State of Delaware. The Eleventh Amendment protects states and their agencies and departments from suit in federal court regardless of the kind of relief sought. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984)

. "Absent a state's consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the state as a defendant."

Laskaris v. Thornburgh , 661 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir.1981)

(citing Alabama v. Pugh , 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) ). 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) (unpublished). In addition, dismissal is proper because the VCC is not a person for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) ; Calhoun v. Young , 288 Fed.Appx. 47 (3d Cir.2008) (unpublished). Accordingly, the court will dismiss the claims against the VCC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and § 1915A(b)(2) as it is immune from suit.

8. Conditions of confinement. Plaintiff alleges that the kitchen sends him contaminated food and that he suffers from malnutrition. The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)

(quoting Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 526–527, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) ). A prisoner asserting a conditions-of-confinement claim must show that the alleged deprivation is "sufficiently serious" and that he has been deprived of the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Id. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (citing Rhodes v. Chapman , 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) ). Accordingly, the Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials provide nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served under conditions that do not present an immediate danger to the health and well-being of the inmates who consume it. See Gregory v. Danberg , 2011 WL 4480445, at *5–6 (D.Del. Sept. 23, 2011). "[O]nly a substantial deprivation of food to a prisoner sets forth a viable Eighth Amendment claim." Lindsey v. O'Connor , 327 Fed.Appx. 319, 321 (3d Cir.2009) (unpublished). Moreover, a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official is deliberately indifferent, that is, the official knows of and disregards a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety. Farmer , 511 U.S. at 837, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970. The official must both be aware of facts from which he could infer that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must draw that inference. Id. (holding that both subjective and objective components must be satisfied).

9. Plaintiff provides no specifics, only that he is served contaminated food, and he is malnourished. As the claim now stands, it does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation and, therefore, the court will dismiss the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

and § 1915A(b)(1). However, because it appears plausible that plaintiff may be able to articulate a claim against an alternative defendant(s), he will be given an opportunity to amend the claim. See O'Dell v. United States Gov't , 256 Fed.Appx. 444 (3d Cir.2007) (unpublished) (leave to amend is proper where the plaintiff's claims do not appear "patently meritless and beyond all hope of redemption").

10. False disciplinary reports. Plaintiff alleges, without supporting facts, that he received false disciplinary charges which caused him to serve sanctions and be deprived of personal property. The filing of false disciplinary charges does not constitute a claim under § 1983

so long as the inmate was granted a hearing and an opportunity to rebut the charges. Crosby v. Piazza , 465 Fed.Appx. 168, 172 (3d Cir.2012) (unpublished) (citing Smith v. Men singer , 293 F.3d 641, 653–54 (3d Cir.2002)

. The scant allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and, therefore, the court will dismiss the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). However, it appears plausible that plaintiff may be able to articulate a claim against an alternative...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
3 books & journal articles
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 68, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...Correctional Complex, Washington) SERVICES- PRISONER U.S. District Court COMMISSARY Carter v. James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 134 F.Supp.3d 794 (D. Del. 2015). A state prisoner filed a pr se complaint under [section] 1983 seeking injunctive relief against a prison. The district court d......
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 68, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...TO COURT U.S. District Court FILING FEES Carter v. James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 134 F.Supp.3d 794 (D. Del. 2015). A state prisoner filed a pro se complaint under [section] 1983 seeking injunctive relief against a prison. The district court dismissed the action. The court held that t......
  • Part one: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 68, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...Television SERVICES-PRISONER: Commissary SUPERVISION: Electronic Surveillance Carter v. James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 134 F.Supp.3d 794 (D. Del. 2015). A state prisoner filed a pr se complaint under [section] 1983 seeking injunctive relief against a prison. The district court dismiss......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT