United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Eric Wilson brings this pro se civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous
individuals. Wilson seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauper is. For the following reasons, the Court will grant
Wilson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
Complaint with leave to amend.
to the Complaint, Wilson was a passenger in a vehicle being
driven by his sibling, Qawi Wilson, on October 25,
2017. Wilson avers that his sibling "began
traveling at high rates of speed as the police gave
chase" and a "tacticle pit-maneuver" was used
by the police (State Trooper Mcllvaine) to stop the fleeing
vehicle. Wilson was thrown from the passenger seat into the
passenger door of the vehicle and instantly incurred injuries
to his right shoulder, neck, and back. Wilson was taken to
Taylor Hospital and despite his notifying the police and
hospital personnel of his injuries, no imaging studies (MRI
or CAT scan) were conducted.
his transfer to Delaware County prison, Wilson contends that
he was in serious need of medical attention and was forced to
file a grievance in order to receive medical care. Wilson
avers a delay in medical attention, stating that he was
examined and x-rayed on November 4, 2017, and prescribed
medication on November 6, 2017. Wilson contends that the
injuries he sustained "are severe in nature and he
continues to suffer from such injuries."
Complaint, Wilson avers as follows:
Each of the Defendants, contained herein and enumerated
within said complaint, has exercised a Deliberate
Indifference to [his] safety/health and or mental health,
instilled such callous disregard to and/or for the value of
human life. Each of the Police Officers, State Troopers,
Taylor Hospital Personnel, Delaware County Prison Personnel,
have violated Policy/Protocol/procedure/Code of Ethics and/or
Laws of the Commonwealth, in that they have engaged in
unethical, impermissible, prejudicial conduct/misconduct in
violation of [his] 8th and 14th Amendment Constitutional
Rights of the United States Constitution. The Insurance
Company(s) - John Doe are liable for [his] injuries adjacent
to the Insurance Policy (Holders).
asserts claims for inadequate medical care against
"Delaware County Prison Medical and Taylor Hospital
Personnel" and asserts claims based on a supervisory
liability theory against "Superintendent John Doe of
Delaware County Prison ... Secretary for the Department of
Corrections for Delaware County .. .[and] Mayor Thadeus
Kirkland, employer of personnel/public servants and or
officers of the City of Chester." Wilson asserts
violations of the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments against
"[e]ach of the Defendant Police Officers and State
Troopers" for "deliberate indifference to [his]
health/safety to where they have breached their duty to
protect as the defendants engaged in a high speed chase of
[his] sibling." Wilson seeks money damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court will grant Wilson leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that he is incapable of
paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the
Court to dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable
to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,
240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine
whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory
allegations do not suffice. Id. As Wilson is
proceeding pro se, the Court construes his
allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655
F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
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).
Wilson, however, has not alleged sufficient facts explaining
what any of the individually named Defendants did or did not
do to violate his rights.
defendant in a civil rights action must have personal
involvement in the alleged wrongs." See Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988)
(explaining that the personal involvement of each defendant
in the alleged constitutional violation is a required element
and a plaintiff must allege how each defendant was involved
in the events and occurrences giving rise to the claims).
Indeed, "[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable
to .. . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official's own
individual actions, has violated the Constitution."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.