Douglas, Jr. v. Goodlander et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 8/14/12. (jmk, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 8/15/12)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ELLIS DOUGLAS , # 210-716

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

EDWIN R. GOODLANDER,
WARDEN JOHN S. WOLFE.

*

Defendants

Civil Action No. CCB-12-1602

*
***
MEMORANDUM

Ellis Douglas has supplemented his complaint as directed by order of the court. He asserts
Defendant Warden Wolfe: 1) denies “legal mail envelopes sent to Plaintiff” and other prisoners at
the Jessup Correctional Institution (JCI); 2) orders corrections officers to violate his rights and those
of other prisoners; 3) orders corrections officers to violate plaintiff’s due process rights as well as
the due process rights and those of other prisoners at JCI; and 4) assigns inmates who complain
about their treatment to lockup or place them under the supervision of correctional officers who
have a history of being “unfair and hard” on prisoners and working together to do “dirty tricks.”
ECF No. 4. Plaintiff claims he has suffered severe and permanent physical injuries and severe
emotional distress1 as a result and demands damages and injunctive relief.
The court is mindful that plaintiff is a self-represented litigant and has accorded his
pleadings liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Liberal construction
does not mean, however, that this court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts
which set forth a federal claim. See Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th
Cir. 1990). This court must dismiss an action filed by a prisoner if it determines it fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § §1915(e) (2); 1915A.

1

“No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ...
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff cannot satisfy this standard with claims containing
only “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at
555 (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level,” id. (citation omitted), stating a claim that is “plausible on its face,” id.
at 570, rather than merely “conceivable.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic
Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, plaintiff must “allege facts
sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim.” Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003).
In this case, the complaint as supplemented fails to satisfy this standard. The claims
presented are conclusory and without substantiation. Further, plaintiff provides no details to support
his claims of injury. Specifically, he fails to: 1) indicate when his mail was purportedly mishandled
or how he was injured as a consequence; 2) provide any details about alleged violations of his
rights or explain resulting injuries suffered; or 3) allege that he was personally placed under the
supervision of “unfair and hard” guards in retaliation for lodging a complaint. To the extent plaintiff
might intend to raise claims on behalf of other inmates, he has no standing to do so. See Hummer v.
Dalton, 657 F.2d 621, 625–26 (4th Cir.1981) (a prisoner cannot act as a “knight-errant” for others);
Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562–563 (4th Cir.1977) (one pro se inmate does not have standing
to sue on behalf of another inmate). For these reasons, the court will dismiss the complaint.
2

Lastly, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the
purpose of preliminary review. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff provides no exceptional circumstances here to
warrant the granting of his motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3). See 28 U.S.C. '1915(e)
(1); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). A separate order follows.

August 14, 2012
Date

______________/s/___________
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

3