Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-771-GMS.
September 23, 2004
William B. Henry, Pro Se, Wilmington, Delaware.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff in this lawsuit, William B. Henry ("Henry"), is apro se litigant who is currently incarcerated at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware. His SBI number is 225507. Henry has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Reviewing complaints filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is a two-step process. First, the court must determine whether Henry is eligible for pauper status. Henry filed this action on August 1, 2003. On August 19, 2003, the court granted Henry leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to file a certified copy of his prison trust account statement within thirty days, or the complaint would be dismissed. On August 20, 2003, Henry paid the $150 fee. Although Henry paid the filing fee in full, he is nonetheless subject to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) — 1915A(b)(1). See Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116, n. 2 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing district court's authority to "screen" prisoner complaint pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2) — 1915A(a) — (b)).
Once the pauper determination is made, the court must then determine whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e) (2) (B) — 1915A(b) (1). If the court finds Henry's complaint falls under any of the exclusions listed in the statutes, then the court must dismiss the complaint.
These two statutes work in conjunction. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) authorizes the court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint at any time, if the court finds the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. Section 1915A(a) requires the court to screen prisoner complaints seeking redress from governmental entities, officers or employees before docketing, if feasible and to dismiss those complaints falling under the categories listed in § 1915A(b)(1).
When reviewing complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) — 1915A(b)(1), the court must apply the standard of review set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Neal v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. Parole, No. 96-7923, 1997 WL 338838 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 1997) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard as appropriate standard for dismissing claim under § 1915A). Accordingly, the court must "accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). Pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears `beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
The standard for determining whether an action is frivolous is well established. The Supreme Court has explained that a complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). As discussed below, Henry's claims have no arguable basis in law or in fact and shall be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2) (B) — 1915A(b) (1).
Neitzke applied § 1915(d) prior to the enactment of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). Section 1915 (e) (2) (B) is the re-designation of the former § 1915(d) under the PLRA. Therefore, cases addressing the meaning of frivolousness under the prior section remain applicable. See § 804 of the PLRA, Pub.L. No. 14-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996).
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Complaint
Henry alleges that the following defendants: Janice Balas, M.D. ("Dr. Balas"), Gordon Reed, M.D. ("Dr. Reed") and the Christiana Care Health Services, Wilmington Hospital ("Christiana Care Health Services") have violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Henry alleges that on July 9, 1999, he was taken to Christiana Care Health Services were he was "treated badly and no one would help" him. (D.I. 2 at 3) Henry also alleges that Dr. Balas hit him and called him a murderer. (Id.) Although it is not clear in the complaint, it appears that Henry was in police custody at the time of his visit. (Id. at 9) Finally, Henry alleges that none of his medical needs were met. (Id.) Henry requests that the court award him $50,000 and "what the states think." (Id. at 4) On February 19, 2004, Henry filed a letter motion for appointment of counsel. (D.I. 5) On June 23, 2004, Henry renewed the motion. (D.I. 7) Because the court finds that his complaint is frivolous, the letter motions for appointment of counsel shall be denied as moot.
B. Analysis
Henry's claim against Dr. Balas, Dr. Reed and Christiana Care Health Services must fail. 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) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981)) (overruled in part on other grounds Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986)).
To act under "color of state law" a defendant must be "clothed with the authority of state law." West, 487 U.S. at 49. Christiana Health Services is a private corporation. Dr. Balas and Dr. Reed are private physicians. It appears from the complaint, that they are employed by Doctors for Emergency Service, which is also a private corporation. (D.I. 2 at 13-14) As such, none of the defendants are in any way "clothed with the authority of state law." Id. Therefore, the plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against the defendants has no arguable basis in law or in fact and shall be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B).
III. CONCLUSION
Henry's claim against Christiana Care Health Services, Dr. Balas and Dr. Reed is deemed frivolous, and shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2) (B) — 1915A(b) (1). An appropriate order shall be entered.
ORDER
At Wilmington this 23rd day of September, 2004, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Henry's claim against Janice Balas, Gordon Reed and Christiana Care Health Services is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) (2) (B) — 1915A(b) (1).
2. Henry's letter motions for appointment of counsel (D.I. 5; D.I 7) are DENIED as MOOT.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall cause a copy of the court's Memorandum Opinion and this Order to be mailed to Henry.