Willie Worley, Jr. v. Alvin Keller
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998741311-2] Originating case number: 5:11-ct-03012-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998830189]. Mailed to: appellant. [11-7540]
Appeal: 11-7540
Document: 17
Date Filed: 04/11/2012
Page: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7540
WILLIE D. WORLEY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALVIN KELLER, Secretary of Prisons; ROBERT LEWIS, Director
of Prisons; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing
Officer; REGINALD E. MIGETTE, SR., Chairman of Inmate
Grievance Board,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03012-BO)
Submitted:
March 22, 2012
Decided:
April 11, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie D. Worley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-7540
Document: 17
Date Filed: 04/11/2012
Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Willie
D.
Worley,
Jr.
appeals
the
district
court’s
dismissal of his complaint and its denial of his motion to alter
judgment.
For the reasons that follow, we vacate the district
court’s dismissal of Worley’s complaint and remand for further
proceedings.
Worley, a North Carolina prisoner, brought a pro se
civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) against certain
officials
of
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Corrections.
Worley’s complaint alleged that prison staff habitually falsely
charged him and other prisoners with misconduct and that the
hearings afforded by the prison were not fair and impartial.
an
aspect
of
the
injury
alleged,
Worley
cited
the
As
$10.00
administrative fee assessed against prisoners found guilty of
misconduct.
The
district
court
reviewed
Worley’s
complaint
and
dismissed it as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006).
In its order, the court cast Worley’s complaint as a claim that
the $10.00 administrative fee is unconstitutional.
Worley filed
a motion to alter judgment stating that the district court had
misunderstood the basis for his complaint.
expressly
stated
that
“Plaintiff
The motion, in fact,
do[es]
not
dispute
the
constitutionality of the Department of Correction[]s assessing a
2
Appeal: 11-7540
Document: 17
$10.00
Date Filed: 04/11/2012
administrative
fee.”
The
Page: 3 of 4
district
court
denied
the
motion.
A
pro
construed.
1978).
se
Gordon
litigant’s
pleadings
v.
574
Leeke,
are
F.2d
to
1147,
be
1151
liberally
(4th
Cir.
Once construed liberally, however, a federal court must
dismiss
an
in
forma
pauperis
case
at
any
time
the
court
determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state
a
claim
monetary
upon
relief
relief.
which
relief
may
a
U.S.C.
28
against
defendant
be
who
is
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
granted,
or
seeks
immune
from
such
Although
not
a
comprehensive definition, a suit is frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact.
252, 256-57 (4th Cir. 2004).
abuse of discretion.
Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d
We review such dismissals for an
Id. at 254.
We find that the district court abused its discretion
in
dismissing
Worley’s
suit
as
frivolous.
To
be
sure,
we
understand fully the inherent awkwardness faced by the district
court
in
existence
examining
of
a
a
pattern
complaint
and
institutional violations.
alleging,
practice
of
in
false
essence,
the
allegations
of
Nevertheless, by misstating Worley’s
claim — and failing to rectify the error in response to Worley’s
motion
to
alter
judgment
determination is untenable.
—
the
district
court’s
frivolous
We therefore vacate the district
court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
3
In doing
Appeal: 11-7540
Document: 17
Date Filed: 04/11/2012
Page: 4 of 4
so, we express no view as to whether Worley’s complaint can be
sustained.
court
We
professed
simply
to
recognize
dismiss
is
that
not
the
the
claim
claim
the
district
contained
in
Worley’s complaint.
Worley’s motion for appointment of counsel
is denied as moot.
We dispense with oral argument because the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?