Campbell v. Dept. of Corrections et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/30/11. [c/m 11/30/11](cms, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JEREMY FRANKLIN CAMPBELL
*
Plaintiff
*
v
*
DEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONS,
WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN,
FACILITY ADMIN. WEBSTER,
and CPT. FLAGG
*
Civil Action No. RWT-11-3109
*
*
Defendants.
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The above-captioned Complaint was filed November 1, 2011, along with a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Because he appears indigent, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.
This Court is obliged by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) to screen prisoner complaints and dismiss
any complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. In deciding whether a complaint is subject to dismissal, the complaint must be read
liberally. See White v. White, 886 F. 2d 721, 722-723 (4th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff seeks restoration of lost diminution of confinement credits as well as lost pay
resulting from his removal from a work release program. See ECF No. 1. He claims that his
removal from his job at M.C.E. laundry occurred when he became the focus of an investigation
conducted by Captain Flagg. Id. at 4. Captain Flagg informed Plaintiff that a note had been
written implicating Plaintiff in a plan to smuggle contraband into the prison. Id. After the
investigation was concluded, Plaintiff claims that Captain Flagg assured him she would contact
Sergeant Bennett at the laundry and tell him Plaintiff could have his job back. Plaintiff states the
other inmate, who was also investigated, returned to work; Plaintiff did not return to work. As a
result, Plaintiff lost 50 days of diminution credits and unspecified pay. Plaintiff claims that the
failure to get his job back is discriminatory and violates his constitutional rights.
As a general matter, prisoners are not constitutionally entitled to participate in programs
or hold job assignments. Absent a showing of significant hardship, the removal from a job or
program does not give rise to a constitutional claim. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224
(1976) (“[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.”); An
atypical and significant hardship as prerequisite to creation of a constitutionally protected liberty
interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995). A protected liberty interest under this
standard “will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the
sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of
its own force . . . , nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation
to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484.
Removal from a work-release program is not an atypical and significant hardship. See
Kitchen v. Upshaw, 286 F.3d 179, 186 (4th Cir. 2002) (not a significant hardship to be denied
permission to leave prison to work); Dominique v. Weld, 73 F.3d 1156, 1160 (1st Cir. 1996)
(removal from work release and transfer to medium security prison did not impose an atypical
and significant hardship); Callender v. Sioux City Residential Treatment Facility, 88 F.3d 666,
669 (8th Cir. 1996) (revocation of work release for refusal to admit crime as pre-requisite to
participation was not an atypical or significant deprivation). Lack of opportunity to earn or have
applied diminution credits is not an atypical and significant hardship. See Bulger v. United Sates
Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 1995), see also Backus v. Ward, 151 F. 3d 1028,
2
1998 WL 372377 (unpublished) (4th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s assertion that the failure to put him
back to work was discriminatory does not save his claim as Plaintiff provides no basis for the
alleged discrimination other than the fact his alleged co-conspirator was allowed to return to
work. Thus, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff is reminded 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.” The instant case will
be the first action filed by Plaintiff that has been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. A separate Order follows.
Date: November 30, 2011
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?