Free Order Dismissing Case (1915) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00306-JJF Document 8 Filed 12/O1/2005 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IVAN L. MENDEZ, :
Plaintiff, Q
v. Q Civ. Act. No. 05-306-JJF
DELAWARE PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, ;
Defendant. Q
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, Ivan L. Mendez, a pgp sg litigant, has filed the
above—captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § l983. Plaintiff
alleges that he was forced to take drugs, precluded from sending
more than five legal letters per week, and was not given
medication prescribed to him by the St. Francis Hospital.
Plaintiff also contends that x—rays depicting his broken legs
were not sent to the Delaware Correctional Center. Throughout
his Complaint, Plaintiff also states that “all of you know it
very well detailed.”
Having granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court must next screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
l9l5(e}(2}(B) and l9l5A(b)(l} to determine whether it is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from relief. In conducting this review, the Court must “accept
as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Nami v.
Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). The term “frivolous” as

Case 1:05-cv-00306-JJF Document 8 Filed 12/O1/2005 Page 2 of 2
used in Section 1915, “embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The Court has reviewed the allegations of Plaintiff’s
Complaint and concludes that Plaintiff cannot state a claim. The
Delaware Psychiatric Center (the “DCP”) is operated by the State
of Delaware through the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental
Health, a part of Delaware Health and Human Services. Because
the DCP is run by an agency, arm or instrumentality of the State,
and the State has not waived its immunity, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the DCP is barred by
the Eleventh Amendment. See Dunsmore v. Norristown State
Hospital (Regional Forensic Psychiatric Center), 1991 WL 133428
(E.D. Pa. July 16, 1991) (holding that state hospital is not a
“person" within the meaning of Section 1983, because it is an
agency of the state); gil Laboy v. Delaware Correctional Center,
2003 WL 1697542, *1-2 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2003) (concluding that
state prison is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment
because it is run by a department of the State).
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 4&_ day of December
2005, that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)—1915A(b)(1).
_ ,, . .,_ v
, T1·:15" TA1E Dis-TRIcT ·· .•