Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim that Andrea Evans' own actions make her liable under § 1983. CONCLUSION Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against theN ew York State Department of Corrections 3 Case 2:11-cv-05462-SJF-WDW Document 6 Filed 12/06/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 17 and Community Supervision and Andrea Evans are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. No summonses shall issue as to these defendants.

STANDARD OF REVIEW When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the action, if the court determines that it 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore, 114 F.3d at 604. A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

The lower courts ruled against the inmate and for the BOP defendants but the Supreme Court vacated their decisions. The Court observed that in rejecting the inmate’s claim the lower courts may have wrongly “placed decisive                                                                                                                 7 The standard employed by a court pursuant to a screening conducted under this provision is as follows: “On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint --- (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immunity from such relief” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). Case 2:13-cv-00071-LGW-JEG Document 49 Filed 02/03/14 Page 8 of 26 9   weight on [the inmate’s] failure to notify respondents of a risk of harm.”

3. On March 22, 2013, the Court conducted a Merit Review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court determined that Plaintiff had adequately stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Davis.

See Docket No. 1. On February 16, 2010, after this Court screened their Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, it was dismissed with leave to amend. See Docket No. 7.

............................17 White v. So. Park Indep. School Dist., 693 F.2d 1163, 1169 (5th Cir. 1982) ............................................................19-20, 20 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) ............................................................................................15, 16 Wilkinson v. D.M. Weatherly Company, 655 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1981) ......................................................................................19 York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 939 (1964) ................................1 Case 2:09-cv-00281-J-BB Document 32 Filed 01/06/10 Page 5 of 29 PageID 320 vi PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS STATE CASES Patrick v. State, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)...............................................................12-13 Sutherland v. Cobern, 843 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. App. 1992) ...........................................................................10 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1915A ........................................................................................................14 28 U.S.C. § 1919 ...........................................................................................................19 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ...........................................................................................................19 Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. art. 64 .........................................................................................6 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a)(2)(A) (Vernon 2006 & Supp. 2009)...............12 Case 2:09-cv-00281-J-BB Document 32 Filed 01/06/10 Page 6 of 29 PageID 321 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff Henry Watkins Skinner respectfully submits this Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.