Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180724_0000480.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-03-23 15:15:00
Document Index: 101243499

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 8119']

WAYNE H. THOMPSON, JR., Plaintiff,
LAWRENCE MCDONALD, M.D., Defendant.
Wayne H. Thompson, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Wayne H. Thompson, Jr. an inmate at Sussex Correctional Institution in Georgetown, Delaware, commenced this action on May 11, 2018 raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] (D.I. 3). He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 5). He requests counsel. (D.I. 7). The Court reviews and screens the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(a).
Plaintiff alleges that from April 2013 through November 2013 he was sexually abused by Defendant "under the disguise of [medical] professionalism." (D.I. 3). He seeks compensatory damages. He also requests counsel. (D.I. 7).
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) if "the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers' Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). "Though 'detailed factual allegations' are not required, a complaint must do more than simply provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.'" Daw's v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) In addition, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, ___ U.S___., 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See Id. at 346.
The Complaint is time-barred. Plaintiff's claims are raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For purposes of the statute of limitations, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are characterized as personal injury actions and are also subject to a two year limitation period. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275 (1983); see 10 Del. C. § 8119; Johnson v. Cullen, 925 F.Supp. 244, 248 (D. Del. 1996). Section 1983 claims accrue "when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which its action is based." Sameric Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that generally must be raised by the defendant, and it is waived if not properly raised. See Benak ex rel. Alliance Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance Capital Mgmt. LP., 435 F.3d 396, 400 n.14 (3d Cir. 2006); Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon,807 F.2d 1150, 1167 (3d Cir. 1986). "[W]here the statute of limitations defense is obvious from the face of the complaint and no development of the factual record is required to determine whether dismissal is appropriate, sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § ...