Roach v. Department of Correctional Central Records et al, No. 1:2021cv01345 - Document 8 (D. Del. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 4/26/2022. (nmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Roach v. Department of Correctional Central Records et al Doc. 8 Case 1:21-cv-01345-VAC Document 8 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ETOYI JEROME ROACH, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL CENTRAL RECORDS, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 21-1345 (VAC) Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Etoyi Jerome Roach, Sussex Work Release Unit, Georgetown, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff. April 26, 2022 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-01345-VAC Document 8 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 35 NOREIKA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff Etoyi Jerome Roach (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Sussex Work Release Unit in Georgetown, Delaware, commenced this action on September 24, 2021, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (D.I. 3). Plaintiff appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 5). This Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(a). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment right to bail and release to await trial was violated from March 2, 2021 through July 2, 2021. (D.I. 3 at 5). Named as Defendants are Delaware Department of Correction Central Records (“DOC”), Parole Board of Maryland (“Parole Board”), and the State of Delaware (“the State”). (Id. at 1, 2). Plaintiff “would like for [his] family to be compensated their money and all parties held responsible for [his] time held in prison after posting bail.” (Id. at 8). II. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) if “the action 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.” Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take 1 When bringing a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and that the person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 1 Case 1:21-cv-01345-VAC Document 8 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 36 them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and the Complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 331 (1989)); see also Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 112 (3d Cir. 2002). “Rather, a claim is frivolous only where it depends ‘on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual scenario.’” Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d at 374 (quoting Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (2003) and Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, the Court, however, must grant a plaintiff leave to amend unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d at 114. A complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations “could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though “detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint 2 Case 1:21-cv-01345-VAC Document 8 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 37 must do more than simply provide “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Davis v. Abington Mem’l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Finally, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 10. Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint “show” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. III. DISCUSSION Defendants are immune from suit. 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 Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 3 Case 1:21-cv-01345-VAC Document 8 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 38 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). Hence, the State of Delaware, the DOC as an agency of the State of Delaware, and the Maryland State Parole Commission are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See e.g. George X v. Carney, No. Civ.A. 21-499-LPS, 2021 WL 7209518, at *3 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2021) (State of Delaware immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment); Evans v. Ford, No. Civ.A. 03-868-KAJ, 2004 WL 2009362, *4 (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2004) (DOC dismissed because DOC is state agency and DOC did not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity); Goodman v. Maryland Parole Comm’n, No. Civ.A. AMD–08–1337, 2009 WL 2170043, at *2 (D. Md. July 15, 2009) (suit against the Parole Commission, an agency of the State of Maryland, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment). Defendants are immune from suit and therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed. Amendment is futile. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) and § 1915A(b)(2). An appropriate Order will be entered. 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
