From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz v. Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jan 28, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6754 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2013)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6754

01-28-2013

ISRAEL DIAZ v. KENNETH ARNOLD, et al.


MEMORANDUM

O'NEILL , J.

Plaintiff has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit against members of the staff at the Lancaster County prison. He alleges that he was injured when he fell from the top of a bunk bed, which did not have a ladder to allow him to get in and out of the bed. He is seeking money damages.

The incident which plaintiff describes in his prayer for relief appears to be the same incident that is the basis for another case that plaintiff has filed in this Court (C.A. No. 10-5939), and which is still ongoing in this Court. Therefore, those claims will not be considered in this Memorandum and Order.

With this action, plaintiff submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. As it appears he is unable to pay the cost of commencing this action, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, for the reasons which follow, this action will be dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

I. DISCUSSION

In order to bring suit under § 1983, plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of his constitutional rights. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). There are no allegations in the complaint that would allow this Court to find that the defendants have violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. Even assuming arguendo that prison officials were negligent because the bunk bed did not have a ladder, negligent conduct which causes unintended injury to an inmate does not amount to a constitutional violation. See Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). Furthermore, plaintiff was given medical treatment for his injuries immediately after he fell.

II. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has advanced an "indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Accordingly, dismissal of this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is appropriate. An order dismissing this complaint follows.


Summaries of

Diaz v. Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jan 28, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6754 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Diaz v. Arnold

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL DIAZ v. KENNETH ARNOLD, et al.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jan 28, 2013

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6754 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2013)

Citing Cases

Lee v. Abellos

Courts in this District have repeatedly held that the failure to provide prisoners with a ladder to reach the…

Lee v. Abellos

However, as we determined in our prior decision, failure to provide prisoners with a ladder to reach the top…