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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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