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

Case 1:05-cv-00305-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, E
v. E Civ. Act. No. O5-305—JJF
DELAWARE STATE, Q
Defendant. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, Ivan L. Mendez, a pro se litigant, has filed the
above—captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
alleges that he suffered broken and braced legs and makes
conclusory and vague allegations of discrimination and verbal,
emotional and psychological abuse.
Having granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court must next screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
l915(e)(2)(B) and 19l5A(b)(1) 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
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

Case 1:05-cv-00305-JJF Document 8 Filed 12/O1/2005 Page 2 of 2
Complaint and concludes that Plaintiff cannot state a claim. The
State of Delaware is not a “person” within the meaning of Section
1983, and the State has not waived its sovereign immunity under
the Eleventh Amendment. Arnold v. Minner, 2005 WL 1501514, *4
(D. Del. June 24, 2005). Accordingly, the Court concludes that
P1aintiff’s law suit against the State of Delaware is barred by
the Eleventh Amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _i_ day of December
2005, that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ l915(e)(2){B)—1915A{b)(l).
Q.
UN T ·· = ·"‘ e niswaiicr · GE