Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00921-SLR Document 71 Filed O2/01/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
VURNIS L. GILLIS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. N0. 04-921-KAJ
JUDGE CHARLES H. TOLIVER, g
et al., )
)
Defendant(s). )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, Vurnis L. Gillis, ("GilIis") is a pro se Iitigant incarcerated at the Delaware
Correctional Center (DCC), in Smyrna, Delaware. On October 6, 2005, I granted Gi|lis’
motion for leave to amend his complaint. (D.l. 5, 23). The amended complaint was
tiled on October 14, 2005, prior to service ofthe original complaint. (D.|. 25). I now
proceed to review and screen the amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915
and § 1915A.
For the reasons discussed below, I am dismissing the amended complaint and
the claims in it brought against defendants R. N. Missy, R.N. Loraine, Nurse Ouanni,
Nurse Gloria, Nurse Betty, Nurse Lisa, R.N. Becky and Nurse Holly as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1).
I. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
The amended complaint is very similar to the original complaint and contains
many, but not all, of the claims raised in the original complaint: deliberate indifference to
a serious medical need in violation of the eighth amendment; denial of access to the
courts, in violation of the first amendment; unwanted administration of psychotropic

Case 1 :04-cv-00921-SLR Document 71 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 2 of 3
drugs in violation of the fourteenth amendment; retaliatory segregation from the prison
population in violation ofthe fourteenth amendment; and, a supplemental state claim of
medical malpractice. The amended complaint adds as defendants R. N. Missy, R.N.
Loraine, Nurse Quanni, Nurse Gloria, Nurse Betty, Nurse Lisa, R.N. Becky and Nurse
Holly.
Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a litigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for
dismissal under certain circumstances. When a prisoner seeks redress in a civil action,
28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides for screening ofthe complaint by the court. Both 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1) provide that the court may dismiss a complaint, at
any time, if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. An
action is frivolous if it "|acks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.
Vwlliams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The court must "accept as true 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)(citing_Hoider v. City ofAl'Ientown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Additionally, pro se complaints are held to "Iess stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by Iawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim
when "it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief."' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521
(1972)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-48 (1957)).
2

Case 1 :04-cv-00921-SLR Document 71 Filed O2/O1/2006 Page 3 of 3
III. ANALYSIS
The amended complaint adds as new defendants R. N. Missy, R.N. Loraine,
Nurse Quanni, Nurse Gloria, Nurse Betty, Nurse Lisa, R.N. Becky, and Nurse Holly. "A
defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs"
to be liable. Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). The complaint contains absolutely
no mention of these defendants other than to include them in the caption ofthe case
and in the listing of defendants. Gillis simply provides no facts to support a claim
against these eight defendants. Accordingly, the claims against R. N. Missy, R.N.
Loraine, Nurse Quanni, Nurse Gloria, Nurse Betty, Nurse Lisa, R.N. Becky and Nurse
Holly as presented, lack an arguable basis in law or in fact and must, therefore, be
U dismissed as frivolous Neitzke v. l/Wlliams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the amended complaint and defendants R.
N. Missy, R.N. Loraine, Nurse Quanni, Nurse Gloria, Nurse Betty, Nurse Lisa, R.N.
Becky, and Nurse Holly are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and § ‘l915A(b)(1). The case will/proceed on %cu;ig%a| complaint.
UNITED STATES DI RIC __/JUDGE
February 2006
Wilmington, Delaware
3