Smith v. Delaware, 236 F. Supp. 3d 882

Pro se plaintiff Everett E. Smith, an inmate, filed a combined § 1983 complaint and motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enforce provisions of a July 15, 2011 settlement between the U.S.A. and the State of Delaware concerning services for persons with mental illness.
Smith alleges he falls within the settlement’s target class (recent DPC discharge, recent private institutionalization, or serious persistent mental illness with recent criminal justice encounters) and that he was denied access to mental health court and competency protections after his November 2012 arrest.
The complaint names the State and, erroneously, the U.S.A.; Smith is not an attorney and cannot represent the U.S.A.
The Court screened the filing under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and found procedural and substantive defects: Eleventh Amendment immunity for the State, time-barred § 1983 claims, and lack of standing to enforce the settlement as a third-party beneficiary.
The original settlement had been entered as a court order in Civ. No. 11-591-LPS and that case was later dismissed after the parties and court monitor found the State implemented the settlement; the agreement itself disclaimed third-party beneficiary rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 claims against the State may proceed	Smith contends the State violated his federal rights under the settlement and Delaware statutes	State is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment	Dismissed: State immune; claims against State barred
Whether § 1983 claims are timely	Smith challenges 2012 conduct and seeks relief in 2016	Defendants (and court on screening) note two-year Delaware limitations period and that claims accrued in 2012–2013	Dismissed as time‑barred and legally frivolous
Whether Smith can enforce the settlement as a nonparty	Smith seeks injunctive relief to enforce settlement provisions (mental health court access)	Settlement disclaims third‑party beneficiaries; underlying case was dismissed after implementation	Denied: Smith lacks standing; motion moot
Whether amendment should be allowed	Smith is pro se and entitled to liberal construction	Court must allow amendment unless futile or inequitable	Amendment denied as futile given immunity, statute‑of‑limitations, and settlement terms

Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3d Cir.) (standards for sua sponte screening and dismissal under § 1915)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (defining frivolous suits lacking legal or factual basis)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading plausibility standard for failure‑to‑state review)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applying Twombly framework to determine plausibility)
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment bars suit against states in federal court absent consent)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (characterizing § 1983 claims as personal injury actions for statute‑of‑limitations purposes)