Opinion
C.A. No. 99C-06-001-RRC.
Submitted: August 19, 1999.
Decided: November 15, 1999.
Upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff David Steelman's "Complaint for Civil Rights Violations with a Tort Action and Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction with Jury Demand." GRANTED.
Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to stay discovery pending defendant's motion to dismiss. This Court does not reach the merits of that Motion because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss has been granted.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint. DENIED.
David Steelman, SBI No. 376995, Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19809.
Stuart B. Drowos, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
Dear Mr. Steelman and Mr. Drowos:
Pending before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff David Steelman's "Complaint for Civil Rights Violations with a Tort Action and Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction with Jury Demand." The motion is based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, Plaintiff's alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in this letter opinion, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
Although this Court does not reach the merits of Defendant's additional claim under Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (to dismiss the case because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction), it appears to this Court that the Superior Court of Delaware maintains jurisdiction to decide a constitutional question under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Vick v. Department of Corrections, Del. Super., C.A. No. 91C-04-0 15, Graves, J. (Sept. 28, 1992) (Mem. Op.).
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that his rights had been violated because Warden Raphael Williams and George Pyle (Defendants) failed to
Plaintiffs complaint passim.
Raphael Williams is the Warden of the Delaware Department of Corrections Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility at 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
Plaintiff alleges that George Pyle is a correctional officer employed by the State of Delaware Department of Corrections at the Delaware Department of Corrections Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility at 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
. . . [house him] within minimum constitutional standards in accord with the Bill of Rights, that Plaintiff receives adequate and necessary medical treatment for his hypoglycemia, heart and other medical problems; that Plaintiff's constitutional right to be safe and secure in his legal papers and case law; and that Plaintiff's constitutional right not to have his due process right of meaningful access to the courts are not violated; and that Plaintiff is not so deprived or the basic necessities, and subjected to overcrowded conditions of confinement that amount to punishment without due process and equal protection of the law, Plaintiff alleges and complains that because [Raphael Williams] has failed to act in the appropriate manner mandated by law. . . .
Plaintiffs complaint at 4-5.
Plaintiffs complaint at 4-5.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges, at great length, the details of how Defendants have violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he was "confined in a cell lock-down status for 16-21 hours per day in a cell lawfully designed for one man but houses 3 men;" that he was "assigned a mattress to sleep on the floor, and is still sleeping on the floor do to overcrowding that prevents Plaintiff from getting a bed and pillow;" and that "Plaintiff is only permitted 1-1 1/2 hours of physical access to the west side facility law library. As a result Plaintiff is being prohibited for conducting necessary legal research for all of his cases that are going on at the same time. . . ." In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff asks for judgment in his favor against Defendants, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to allow more time for him in the law library, improved living conditions and actual damages, costs and attorney fees in excess of $750,000.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 7.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because his allegations are "vague and conclusory." Plaintiff alleges general complaints of the overall condition of the facility in which he is housed but fails to identify how he was deprived of a "single identifiable human need." Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to give proper medical treatment but Plaintiff fails to identify how Defendants failed to provide adequate medical care and fails to show that Defendants had the "reckless disregard" of "or actual intent" required to prove that there was "deliberate indifference." Furthermore, Plaintiff's allegations fail to satisfy the objective requirement that the deprivation be sufficiently serious, and the subjective requirement that a prison official acted with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Moreover, liability may not be imposed vicariously against a supervisory official merely on the theory of respondeat superior and the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity bars any claim to hold Defendants liable in their official capacities for an alleged tort and/or State constitutional violation. Lastly, this Court does not of course have equitable jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Therefore this Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and is dismissed.
Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d. Cir. 1957); and see Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920, 922 (3d. Cir. 1976) (two cases holding that it was appropriate to dismiss a complaint by a state prisoner for a civil rights violation because the allegations were broad and conclusory, and unsupported by factual allegations).
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991).
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Accord White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 109 (3d. Cir. 1990).
Benson v. Caddy, 761 F.2d 335, 339 (7th Cir. 1985).
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 359-360 (3d. Cir. 1992).
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375 (1976); Gay v. Petsock, 917 F.2d 768, 771 (3d. Cir. 1990); Heine v. Receiving Area Personnel, 711 F. Supp. 178, 186-188 (D. Del. 1989).
See Del. Const. Art. I, Sec. 9; Doe v. Cates, Del. Super., 499 A.2d 1175 (1985).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's "Complaint for Civil Rights Violations with a Tort Action and Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction with Jury Demand" is GRANTED.
Pending before this Court not related to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff also seeks to amend his complaint pursuant Super Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(a) to add two additional defendants: Correctional Officer Petroulis and a member of the medical staff at the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility identified as Dr. Ivans.
Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint at 3.
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint is denied. Although Plaintiff does have the theoretical right pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(a) to amend the complaint, this Court finds that Plaintiff's proposed amendment is barred by Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(c). Plaintiff seeks to add Officer Petroulis as a defendant based on a separate incident that allegedly happened on July 19, 1999, two months after the original complaint was filed. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) permits relation back if "the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleadings arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading." This Court finds that Plaintiff's amended complaint does not state how the addition of Officer Petroulis or the alleged incident on July 19, 1999 relates back the original pleading. As for Dr. Ivans, this Court finds that counsel for Defendants do not represent the medical staff at the state's prison facilities and that the medical staff is represented by separate counsel. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.