Green v. Riley et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 5/19/14. (c/m apls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ELWOOD A. GREEN #359184
*
Plaintiff
*
v.
*
OFFICER RILEY
ACTING WARDEN
ARP COORDINATOR
Civil Action No. GLR-14-1512
*
*
Defendants
*
****
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Self-represented Plaintiff Elwood A. Green (“Green”), an inmate confined at Western
Correctional Institution (“WCI”), filed the above-captioned civil rights Complaint regarding the
rejection of his Administrative Remedy Procedure (“ARP”) grievance concerning property that
was stolen or lost on July 8, 2012. Green seeks $120 in damages for the lost property and $1,200
in punitive damages for the alleged misconduct resulting in the denial of relief under the ARP
process. ECF No. 1, p. 3 and ECF No. 1-2, p. 4. Accompanying the Complaint is Green’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) which shall be granted.
Green does not state the basis for his federal cause of action with regard to his claim that
his ARP complaint was not properly adjudicated. Affording the self-represented pleading a
liberal construction, it appears Green is raising a due process claim that prison officials erred in
dismissing his ARP complaint on procedural grounds, thus preventing his recovery for his lost
property.
Ordinarily, the question of whether ARPs have been processed or investigated properly,
or have been wrongfully dismissed creates no constitutional claim for relief. Under the law of
this Circuit, there is no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to such procedures
voluntarily established by a state. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).
It is
arguable, however, that if certain acts or omissions relating to the processing of grievances
interfere with a prisoner’s constitutional right to access to the courts, a colorable claim may be
stated. See Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995).
In Maryland, filing a request for administrative remedy with the warden of the prison is
the first of three steps in the ARP process. The Division of Correction’s Directive on
Administrative Remedy Procedures, DCD # 185-002 (August 27, 2008) outlines the ARP
process. The ARP must be filed within 30 days of the date on which the incident occurred, or 30
days of the date the prisoner first gained knowledge of the incident or injury giving rise to the
complaint, whichever is later. DCD # 185-002, § VI. L.3. If the request is denied, a prisoner has
30 calendar days to file an appeal with the Commissioner of Correction. DCD # 185-002, VI.
M.1. If the appeal is denied, the prisoner has 30 days to file a grievance with the Executive
Director of the Inmate Grievance Office (“IGO”). See Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. §§ 10-206,
10-210; Md. Code Regs. title 12 § 07.01.03; see also DCD # 185-002, §VI.N.1. In order to show
administrative exhaustion, the prisoner must demonstrate that he appealed his grievance to the
IGO through all three steps in the administrative process.
The property allegedly disappeared on July 8, 2012. ECF No. 1-2, p. 4. Green timely
filed his ARP to the Warden on July 15, 2012. Id. He was told to resubmit the ARP by August
15, 2012, with supporting exhibits showing property ownership as well as the shift during which
the property was taken and who was responsible for property inventory. ECF No. 1-2, p 2.
Green claims he “did what [he] was told” and resubmitted an ARP, which was signed on August
13, 2012, and received in the Warden’s office on August 16, 2012, that included receipts for
2
several of the items of property. Id. It is clear that Green did not submit all of the requested
receipts (presumably for the food and personal hygiene items) because he was “not able to retain
any receipts from commissary.” Id., p. 5. The October 2, 2012 response to that re-submission,
signed by the Warden’s representative and received by Green on October 5, 2012, states the ARP
was “dismissed for procedural reasons”1 and also because Green failed to provide “[p]roof of
ownership, valuables forms and receipts.” Id., pp. 4 and 10.
Green then filed an appeal to the Commissioner that was received by the Division of
Correction ARP/IGO Unit on December 18, 2012. Although unable to provide receipts from the
commissary for food and hygiene items, Green did include a receipt from Union Supply Direct
indicating a $33.95 cost for two music discs. Id., pp. 8-9. Green also provided copies of his
ARP submissions to the Warden to support his claim that he did all he could to file his
supplemental ARP to the Warden on time. Id., p. 10. Despite this effort, Green’s appeal was
denied as untimely on January 18, 2013. Id., p. 1. Green does not explain why, nor indicate
whether, he appealed the January 18, 2013 decision to the IGO.
The evidence suggests that Green’s re-submission of his ARP included receipts showing
property valued at $33.95. It is arguable that Green did all he could to submit the paperwork to
the ARP Coordinator at his prison in a timely manner, even though it was not logged into the
appropriate office until one day after the deadline. Green’s appeal to the Commissioner was well
documented; however, it was received long after the 30-day appeal period had expired.
Furthermore, Green does not indicate he presented the denial of the ARP appeal to the IGO, a
final step in the ARP process. Nothing suggests that Green was denied an opportunity to present
his claim through the ARP process. Thus, Green has failed to establish a denial of due process.
1
Although unclear, it appears the ARP Coordinator determined the submission was untimely. Id., pp. 4-5.
3
To the extent that Green seeks money damages for the wrongful loss of his property,2
sufficient due process is afforded to a prisoner if he has access to an adequate post-deprivation
remedy. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 542-44 (1981), overruled on other grounds by
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). The right to seek damages and injunctive relief in
Maryland courts constitutes an adequate post-deprivation remedy, see Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F.
Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md. 1982);3 for that reason, Green’s property claim cannot proceed here.
Consequently, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order follows.
May 19, 2014
/s/
________________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
2
Green suggests that he did not receive a hearing before his property was packed and removed from his cell. The
property was inventoried and packed up because Green was taken to the medical department, where he apparently
was housed for a period of time. ECF No. 1-2, pp. 4- 5. It does not appear that the property was seized because it
was considered contraband; the attachments to the Complaint suggest that the property may have been stolen or lost
just prior to or at the time of the inventory.
3
Although Juncker dealt with personal injury rather than property loss, its analysis and conclusion that sufficient
due process is afforded through post deprivation remedies available in the Maryland courts also applies to cases of
lost or stolen property, given Juncker=s reliance on Parratt in dismissing plaintiff=s due process claim.
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?