Dennis v. Boulos

• Court: District Court, D. Delaware
• Decided: June 13, 2022
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00655
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROGER L. DENNIS, : a/\k/a Abdul a.m. Shakur, : Plaintiffs, : Vv. : Civ. No. 21-655-LPS □

DR. TIM BOULOS, et al., : Defendants. :

Roger L. Dennis, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

June 13, 2022 Wilmington, Delaware

Tent P. bos STARK, U.S. Circuit Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Roger L. Dennis, an inmate at Howard R. Young Cortectional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2) Plaintiff appears pro se and has been gtanted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.1. 4, 7) The Court proceeds to scteen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A@). II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution when he was housed at HRYCI; excessive force was used against him, he tested positive fot COVID-19 on December 28, 2020, and the Department of Correction did not respond to his grievances. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. Ill. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sva 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. Famigho, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(€)(2) x 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 pleading is liberally construed and the Complaint, “however inattfully pleaded, eniast be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).

A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 331 (1989)); see also Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112 (3d Cir. 2002). “Rather, a claim is frivolous only whete it depends ‘on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual scenario.” Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d at 374 (quoting Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (2003) and Neitrke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See 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 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 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the Court must grant a plaintiff leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayniew State Hosp., 293 F.3d at 114. A complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations “could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Be// At. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though “detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint must do more than simply ptovide “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Davis v. Abington Mem’! Hosp., 705 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Asheroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

Finally, 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 be dismissed for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 10. Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court 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, ate not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See 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. See Igbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing 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. IV. DISCUSSION Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, a prisoner must pursue all available avenues for relief through the prison’s grievance system before bringing a federal civil rights action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 0.6 (2001) (“[A]n inmate must exhaust irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues.”). Section 1997(e) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, ptison, ot othet cortectional facility until such administrative remedies as ate available ate exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e). The exhaustion requirement is mandatory. See Wiliams v. Beard, 482 F.3d 637, 639 (3d Cir. 2007); Biei, 532 USS. at 742 (holding that exhaustion requirement of PLRA applies to grievance procedures “regardless of the relief offered through administrative

ptocedures”). The limitations period for filing a § 1983 action is tolled during the period that a ptisoner spends exhausting his administrative remedies. See Jones v. Unknown D.O.C. Bus Driver ¢ Transportation Crew, 944 F.3d 478, 480 (3d Cir. 2019). There is no futility exception to § 1997e’s exhaustion requirement. See Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 75-76 (3d Cir. 2000). An inmate must fully satisfy the administrative requirements of the inmate grievance process before proceeding into federal court. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004); see also Oriakhi v. United States, 165 F. App’x 991, 993 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[I]hete appears to be unanimous circuit court consensus that a prisoner may not fulfill the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement by exhausting administrative remedies after the filing of the complaint in federal coutt.”). Courts have concluded that inmates who fail to fully, or timely, complete the prison gtievance process ate batred from subsequently litigating claims in federal court. See ¢.g., Booth ». Churner, 206 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000); Bolla v. Strickland, 304 F. App’x 22 (3d Cir. 2008). If the actions of prison officials directly caused the inmate’s procedural default on a gtievance, the inmate will not be held to strict compliance with this exhaustion tequitement. See Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000). In addition, an inmate’s failure to exhaust will be excused “under certain limited circumstances,” Harris v. Armstrong, 149 F. App’x 58, 59 (3d Cir. 2005), so an inmate can defeat a claim of failure to exhaust by showing “he was misled or that there was some exttaordinaty treason he was prevented from complying with the statutory mandate,” Dawis v. Warman, 49 F. App’x 365, 368 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Ross v Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642-44 (2016) (administrative procedure is not available when it operates as simple dead end, it is so opaque that it becomes incapable of use, and when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of gtievance process through machination, misinterpretation, or intimidation.). Also, “administrative remedies are not ‘available’ under the PLRA where a prison official inhibits an inmate from resorting

to them through serious threats of retaliation and bodily harm.” Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257, 267 (3d Cir. 2018). While exhaustion is an affirmative defense, the Court may sva sponte dismiss an action putsuant to § 1915A when the failure to exhaust defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. See Catby v. Haidle, 785 F. App’x 64, 65 (3d Cir. 2019). Here, Plaintiff admits that the grievance ptocess was not complete when he filed his Complaint. (D.I. 2 at 9) He states that his grievances ate being forwarded to the unit commander and it has been two months since he requested action. Given Plaintiffs admission in the Complaint that the grievance process was not complete when he filed this action, dismissal for failure to exhaust is watranted. The Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). V. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. An appropriate Order will be entered.