United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
D. WOLSON, J.
Dwayne Jackson, an inmate at Philadelphia Industrial
Correctional Center (“PICC”), is representing
himself and has filed a civil action against two Correctional
Officers, PICC's Warden Cathy Talmadge (who Jackson
incorrectly identifies as “Talnodge, ”), and a
Captain Love. Because it appears that Jackson is unable to
afford to pay the filing fee, the Court will grant him leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following
reasons, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed in part
without prejudice as to Defendants Talmadge and Love pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and with leave granted
to Jackson to file a second amended complaint if he can cure
the defects identified in his Amended Complaint.
Court accepts the facts in Mr. Jackson's Amended
Complaint as true and construes them liberally in recognition
of his status as a pro se plaintiff. Jackson alleges
that on April 2, 2019, he was assaulted by Corrections
Officers Creamer and Taylor who, after a fight broke out
among other inmates, started punching and beating him. (ECF
No. 6 at 5.) He claims he was punched in the left jaw, hit in
the face by keys and in the neck with a walkie talkie, and
kicked. (Id.) Jackson makes no substantive
allegation regarding any named Defendant other than Creamer
STANDARD OF REVIEW
plaintiff seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis
must establish that he is unable to pay for the costs of his
suit. See Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc.,
886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). Where, as here, a court
grants a plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court must determine whether the complaint
states a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). That inquiry requires the court to
apply the standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). Under that standard, the court must take all
well-pleaded allegations as true, interpret them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all inferences in
his favor. See Kokinda v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections,
-- Fed. App'x --, 2019 WL 2577750, at * 2 (June 24,
2019). Moreover, because Mr. Hyppolite is proceeding pro
se, the Court must construe his pleadings liberally.
See Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d
Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Jackson provided information demonstrating that he lacks the
income or assets to pay the required filing fees. (ECF Nos.
4, 5.) Therefore, the Court will grant him leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Plausibility Of Claims In The Complaint
1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides in part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under §
1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law.” West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
in the light most favorable to him, Mr. Jackson's Amended
Complaint states a claim against Correctional Officers
Creamer and Taylor for violation of rights that the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments secure. However, Mr. Jackson does
not make any allegations about the involvement of Warden