From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jamison v. Carpenter

United States District Court, D. Delaware
May 13, 2008
Civ. No. 08-048-SLR (D. Del. May. 13, 2008)

Opinion

Civ. No. 08-048-SLR.

May 13, 2008


MEMORANDUM ORDER


At Wilmington this 13th day of May, 2008, having screened the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A;

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A, for the reasons that follow:

1. Background. Plaintiff Clarence U. Jamison ("plaintiff"), an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center ("DCC"), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. Standard of Review. When a litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for dismissal under certain circumstances. When a prisoner seeks redress from a government defendant in a civil action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for screening of the complaint by the court. Both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) provide that the court may dismiss a complaint, at any time, if 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. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

3. In performing the court's screening function under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court applies the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Fullman v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., No. 4:07CV-000079, 2007 WL 257617 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2007) (citing Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 2000). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). A complaint must contain "'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.

4. A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, however, "a plaintiffs obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 1965 (citations omitted). The "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff is required to make a "showing" rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief.Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). "[W]ithout some factual allegation in the complaint, a claimant cannot satisfy the requirement that he or she provide not only "fair notice," but also the "grounds" on which the claim rests. Id. (citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 n. 3). Therefore, "'stating . . . a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element." Id. at 235 (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 n. 3). "This 'does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,' but instead 'simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." Id. at 234. Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

5. Discussion. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr. ("Judge Carpenter") presided over a bench trial in September 2005, found plaintiff guilty, and sentenced him. Plaintiff asks the court to "hear" his case. He seeks monetary damages and a new sentencing. Also named as a defendant is the State of Delaware.

6. Habeas Corpus. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to challenge his conviction and/or sentence, his sole federal remedy for challenging the fact or duration of his confinement is by way of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). He cannot recover under § 1983 for alleged wrongful incarceration unless he proves that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey. 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Wallace v. Kato, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1097 (2007) (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.) The cause of action accrues at the time the imprisonment is invalidated. Gibson v. Superintendent of N.J. Dep't of Law and Public Safety Div., 411 F.3d 427, 435 (3d Cir. 2005); see also Wallace, 127 S.Ct. at 1091 (cause of action accrues when plaintiff is able to "file suit and obtain relief.").

7. Plaintiff has not alleged or proven that his conviction or sentence was reversed or invalidated as provided by Heck, To the extent plaintiff seeks damages for his current incarceration, his claim rests on an "inarguable legal conclusion" and is, therefore, frivolous. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 326. Accordingly, it is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).

8. Judicial Immunity. Plaintiff's claim against Judge Carpenter fails. Judges are absolutely immune from suits for monetary damages and such immunity cannot be overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Furthermore, judicial immunity can only be overcome if the judge has acted outside the scope of his judicial capacity or in the "complete absence of all jurisdiction." Id. at 11-12. Here, plaintiff alleges that Judge Carpenter presided over a criminal bench trial, found plaintiff guilty, and sentenced him. The complaint contains no allegations that Judge Carpenter acted outside the scope of his judicial capacity, or in the absence of his jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. Judge Carpenter is immune from suit for monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the claim lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact and is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).

9. Eleventh Amendment Immunity. Plaintiffs claim for monetary damages against the State of Delaware is absolutely barred by the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. See MCI Telecom. Corp. v. Bell Atl. of Pa., 271 F.3d 491, 503 (3d Cir. 2001). The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an unconsenting state or state agency from a suit brought in federal court by one of its own citizens, regardless of the relief sought. See Pennhurst State Sch. Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). The State has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court, and although Congress can abrogate a state's sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Brooks-McCollum v. Delaware, 213 Fed. Appx. 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, there is no mention of the State, other than to name it in the caption of the complaint. Consequently, plaintiff's claim against the State has no arguable basis in law or in fact and, therefore, it is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) 15(e)(2)(B).

10. Conclusion. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiffs motion for order granting transcripts is denied as moot. (D.I. 6.) Amendment of the complaint would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976).


Summaries of

Jamison v. Carpenter

United States District Court, D. Delaware
May 13, 2008
Civ. No. 08-048-SLR (D. Del. May. 13, 2008)
Case details for

Jamison v. Carpenter

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE U. JAMISON, Plaintiff, v. HON. JUDGE WILLIAM C. CARPENTER, JR…

Court:United States District Court, D. Delaware

Date published: May 13, 2008

Citations

Civ. No. 08-048-SLR (D. Del. May. 13, 2008)

Citing Cases

Raicher v. Nat. Bank of Commerce

Kurtzeborn v. Liberty Bank, 253 S.W. 103; Strohmeyer Arpe Co. v. Guaranty Trust Co., 157 N.Y.S. 955; Fliker…

Gunter v. Standard Oil Co.

The instrument, therefore, was a written acknowledgment of payment in full of an unliquidated demand and…