Lee v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Service

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 3/12/2018. (c/m 3/19/18 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JOHN LEE, #183-953, #412-479,

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

*

Civil Action No. CCB-18-770

*
Defendant
***
MEMORANDUM
John Lee, a Maryland Department of Corrections prisoner housed at Eastern Correctional
Institution, filed an action seeking compensation for personal property destroyed by fire on
October 9, 2016, while Lee was housed at Jessup Correctional Institution. ECF No. 1. For
reasons set forth herein, Lee’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted
and the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Background
Lee seeks unspecified compensatory damages and states that the sprinkler system failed
to extinguish the fire that destroyed the property in his cell.1

ECF No. 1, pp. 3-4.

His

administrative action seeking damages against the Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services (“DPSCS”) was unsuccessful. See In the Matter of John Lee, Case No. C-19-CV-17000141 (Cir. Ct. for Somerset Co.).2
Analysis
Lee’s complaint is filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant
1

Lee indicates he was in the prison hospital at the time of the fire.

2

See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?.

to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the filing fee. To guard against
possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a district court to dismiss 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). In this context, this court is mindful of its obligation to liberally
construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
In evaluating a pro se complaint, a plaintiff's 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 a 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, however, 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). Thus, this court is obligated to examine the tort claim of negligence outlined in Lee’s
complaint.
Lee has not named a proper party.3

At most, Lee’s complaint appears to involve

negligence based on the alleged failure to maintain a working sprinkler system in the prison.
This is a tort claim under state law. It does not state a constitutional or federal statutory
3

Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state, its agencies and
departments are immune from suits in federal court brought by its citizens or the citizens of
another state, unless it consents. See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
100 (1984). While the State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of
cases brought in state courts, see Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-202(a), it has not waived its
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to suit in federal court. Thus, Lee’s complaint against
DPSCS, a State agency, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
2

violation, and cannot be brought in this Court pursuant to § 1983.4 See Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327 (1986). His complaint shall therefore be dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Lee is cautioned that under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) he will not be granted in forma
pauperis status if he has
on 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. 
         3/19/18          
Date  

________  /S/____________________ 
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

4

Lee, who appears to be a Maryland resident, does not indicate that the value of the destroyed
property exceeded $75,000.00. Thus, it does not appear that Lee has established a basis for
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
3