Chadwick v. Warden
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 2/23/2017. (c/m 2/23/2017)(ko, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STEVE C. CHADWICK
Civil Action No. RDB-16-4063
Plaintiff supplemented the above-captioned Complaint pursuant to this Court’s Order of
December 28, 2016. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF 5) shall be granted.
Although Plaintiff’s original pleading referenced matters such as an alleged failure to
provide psychiatric care and assaults by other inmates, the supplemental pleadings address only
the removal of Plaintiff from his institutional job assignment. ECF 4 and 6. Specifically,
Plaintiff claims that on January 26, 2017, he was removed from his job assignment for poor work
performance and was removed from his single cell assignment. He states that he needs an
institutional job assignment because he gets no money from his family and that he held this job
for 18 months. Plaintiff appears to take issue with the rationale for his removal, but offers no
evidence that the rationale for his removal was somehow improper. ECF 4 at p. 3.
Plaintiff filed this Complaint in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), which
permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in this Court without prepaying the filing fee.
To guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires dismissal of any claim that
is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This Court is mindful, however, of its obligation to liberally construe
self-represented pleadings, such as the instant Complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007). In evaluating such a Complaint, the factual allegations are assumed to be true. Id. at
93 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)). Nonetheless, liberal
construction does not mean that this Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege
facts which set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th
Cir. 1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a
district court may not “conjure up questions never squarely presented.”).
In making this
determination, A[t]he district court need not look beyond the complaint's allegations . . . . It must
hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and must
read the complaint liberally.@ White v. White, 886 F. 2d 721, 722-723 (4th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff’s claim that he was improperly removed from a job and removed from a single
cell does not state a constitutional claim. . “[G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant
has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and
subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not
otherwise violate the Constitution.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976), see also
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 493 (1995), requiring an atypical and significant hardship as
prerequisite to creation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Plaintiff does not have an
enforceable right to demand a prison job assignment, nor may he assert a claim regarding his cell
assignment absent evidence that his safety is jeopardized by the change. The Complaint must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Under 28 U.S.C.
'1915(g) Plaintiff will not be granted in forma pauperis status if he has Aon 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.@ A separate Order follows.
__February 23, 2017__________
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?