Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191107_0000993.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 09:08:48
Document Index: 485390421

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

FindACase™ | Terry v. Dover Police Department
Terry v. Dover Police Department
ALFRED R. TERRY, Plaintiff,
DOVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
Alfred R. Terry, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Alfred Terry, a pretrial detainee at the Sussex Correctional Institution in Georgetown, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] (D.I. 1). Plaintiff appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 6). The Court screens and reviews the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and§1915A(a).
On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff fled from police officers and hid under a school bus. (D.I. 1 at 6). Plaintiff alleges that he was tracked and then attacked by Defendant K-9 Reeko, who belongs to Defendant Cpl. Figuerora. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Reeko was not adequately trained and, as a result, Reeko bit Plaintiff first in the face before Reeko redirected his attack to Plaintiffs upper arm. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that unnamed officers assisted Reeko in the arrest. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that he was compliant and not resisting even though his arm was still in Reeko's mouth. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that after he was prone and handcuffed, unnamed officers continued to allow Reeko to "carry on with his use of force." (Id. at 7). Plaintiff alleges that, at this point, he was subjected to excessive and unreasonable force. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.
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); Eṅckson 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." Eṅckson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plaintiff has named the Delaware State Police as a defendant. The Delaware State Police is an agency of the State of Delaware. The Eleventh Amendment protects states and their agencies and departments from suit in federal court regardless of the kind of relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman,465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). "Absent a state&#39;s consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars a civil rights suit in federal court that names the state as a defendant." Laskaris v. Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1981). Delaware has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court; although Congress can abrogate a state&#39;s sovereign immunity, it did not do so through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. &sect; 1983. See Brooks v. McCollum v. Delaware,213 Fed.Appx. 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2007). In addition, dismissal is proper ...