Sanders v. Fellowship Health Resources

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: July 23, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00213
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:20-CV-213-BO

GARRY SANDERS ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ORDER ) FELLOWSHIP HEALTH RESOURCES, _ ) _ MS. HURLEY, DR. MAURER, ) Defendants. )

On May 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court without either paying the filing fee or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 27, 2020, United States Magistrate ‘Judge Robert T. Numbers, II, entered an order notifying plaintiff of the deficiencies and directing to correct the deficiencies within fourteen days or risk dismissal of his complaint. [DE 2]. On 16, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as other case opening documents. [DE 3-5]. He also filed a motion to open. [DE 6]. DISCUSSION Although plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was filed more than fourteen days following entry of Magistrate Judge Numbers’ order, the Court will consider plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated appropriate evidence of inability to pay the required costs of court, and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 3] is GRANTED. A claim proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time if it is

frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis @ither in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff proceeding in

forma pauperis “must meet certain minimum standards of rationality and specificity,” and delusional or fantastic claims which are clearly baseless are subject to dismissal. Adams v. Rice,

40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994). A court may further dismiss all or any part of a complaint which

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or which seeks money damages from a defendant immune from such recovery. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs complaint alleges a single claim against defendants for violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The claim arises from plaintiffs

attempts in 2009 to have his driver’s license restored. Plaintiff alleges that he took a forty-hour class at Fellowship Health, which then failed to submit a 508 form to the Department of Motor vonieles on plaintiffs behalf. Plaintiff alleges that he attended more than the recommended forty hours of class, that defendants took his money and did not send in the 508 form, and that this

failure has prolonged plaintiff being without a driver’s license and employment. □ ee The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment “was designed to protect those convicted of crimes, and consequently the Clause applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 318 (1986) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “A sentenced inmate . . . may be punished, although that punishment may not be ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 n.16 (1979). Thus, the Eighth ‘Amendment is implicated only when evaluating punishment inflicted after a conviction. Tibbs v. Williams, 263 F, Supp. 2d 39, 41 (D.D.C. 2003). Plaintiff has failed to allege oT fact which would show that taking a class in an effort to restore his driver’s license following a D.W.I. conviction is part of his punishment. Moreover, 42 USC. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of constitutional rights by persons acting

_ under color of state law. A plaintiff must therefore allege that the defendant was acting under the color of state law and that the defendant’s conduct deprived plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution. See Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, 868 F.2d 1364, 1366 (1989). Plaintiff brings his claim against Fellowship Health Resources, Ms. Hurley, and Dr. Maurer, whom he has not alleged are state actors for purposes of bringing a claim under § 1983 for an alleged violation of his constitutional right. See also Vassallo v. Clover, Div. of Strawbridge & Clothier, 767 F. Supp. 651, 653 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (Eighth Amendment involves state’s custodial powers).

This is nota eae of the Court dismissing a complaint because it believes that “actual proof of [the alleged] facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is also not a case of potentially cognizable claims being dismissed for “failure to state them with technical precision.” Coleman v. Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965). Here, it is readily apparent that there aré no cognizable claims. Accordingly, the complaint is properly DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. The motion to open [DE 6] is DENIED.

$0 ORDERED, this (2 A day of July, 2020. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE