Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. Doe

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

December 16, 2019

ERIC WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT JOHN DOE GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - DELAWARE CO., et al. Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

         Plaintiff Eric Wilson brings this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous individuals.[1] 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.

         I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         According to the Complaint, Wilson was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by his sibling, Qawi Wilson, on October 25, 2017.[2] 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.

         Following 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."

         In his 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).

         Wilson 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.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The 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.[3] 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         "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). Wilson, however, has not alleged sufficient facts explaining what any of the individually named Defendants did or did not do to violate his rights.

         "A 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.

         A. Claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.