Reid v. Prince Georges County Department of Corrections et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 8/3/2015. (c/m 8/4/2015 nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*

MARCUS DEVON REID,
Plaintiff,

v.

*

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et aI.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. PWG-14-l692

*
*
***

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Prince George's County Department
of Corrections and CpI. Emma Alfaro. ECF 7. Plaintiff has not filed a response.) Upon review of
the papers and exhibits filed, I find an oral hearing in this matter unnecessary.

See Local Rule

105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below, the dispositive motion will be granted.
Background
The case was instituted upon receipt of a civil rights Complaint filed by Plaintiff Marcus
Devon Reid. ECF 1. Plaintiff claims that On September 25, 2013, while incarcerated at the
Prince George's County Department of Corrections, he was given mail by Corporal Alfero from
his attorney that had been opened outside of his presence and had tape on it. Plaintiff asked
Alfero why the mail was opened out of his presence. Alfero replied that she did not mean to open
it and left the unit. Plaintiff claims that when he opened the envelope he found six of his outgoing
letters to his family in the envelope. ld. at 3.

IPursuant to the dictates of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 31 0 (4th Cir. 1975), on January 6, 2015, Plaintiff
was notified that Defendants had filed a dispositive motion, the granting of which could result in the dismissal of his
action. ECF 8. Plaintiff also was informed that he was entitled to file materials in opposition to that motion within
seventeen (17) days from the date of that letter and that his failure to file a timely or responsive pleading or to
illustrate, by affidavit or the like, a genuine dispute of material fact, could result in the dismissal of his case or in the
entry of summary judgment without further notice of the Court. Jd.

Standard of Review
Summary Judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), which provides that:
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will
defeat the motion:
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
"The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment 'may not rest
upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,' but rather must 'set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for triaL'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc.,
346 F.3d 514,525

(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (alteration in original)).

court should "view the evidence in the light most favorable to ...

The

the nonmovant, and draw all

inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness' credibility."
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). The court
must, however, also abide by the "affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually
unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial."

Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (quoting

Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted), and
citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)).
In Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986) the Supreme Court

explained that in considering a motion for summary judgment, the "judge's

function is not

himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether
2

there is a genuine issue for trial." A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."

Id. at 248. Thus,

"the judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or
the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the
evidence presented." Id. at 252.
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact. No genuine issue of material fact exists if the nonmoving party fails to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of his or her case as to which he or she would have the
burden of proof.

See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Therefore, on those

issues on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof, it is his or her responsibility to
confront the summary judgment motion with an affidavit or other similar evidence showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.
Analysis
A. Prince George's County Department of Corrections
To sustain an action under 42 U.S.C.

S

1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he

suffered a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States; and (2) the act
or omission causing the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of law. West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Because the Prince George's

County Department

of

Corrections is not a "person" subject to suit or liability under 1983, Plaintiff's complaint against it
shall be dismissed.
B. Mail Claim
On September 25,2013, Alfaro was employed by the Prince George's County Department
of Corrections as a mail officer whose duties included processing inmate mail. ECF 7-1. Staff in

3

the Office of Finance were tasked with sorting incoming inmate mail into two piles, legal mail
and personal mail. Id. Alfaro retrieved the mail from the Office of Finance and inspected the mail
in the "personal" pile by opening each envelope to check for contraband.

When she inspected the

envelope addressed to Plaintiff, she realized it was correspondence form an attorney. !d. Alfaro
taped the envelope shut without looking at the contents and went to Plaintiff s housing unit to
deliver the envelope to Plaintiff personally, explaining that she accidentally opened it. Id.
Prisoner claims regarding legal mail are typically analyzed as access to the courts
claims. To state a constitutional claim for denial of access to the courts, a prisoner must show that
the alleged shortcomings "hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 351 (1996). Plaintiff has alleged no actual injury or specific harm that he suffered as a result
of the mishandling of his outgoing legal mail. Likewise, to state a claim based on delay or nondelivery of legal mail, a prisoner must allege an adverse consequence as basis for allegation that
delay or non-delivery deprived him of meaningful access to the courts. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at
349,' see also Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367 (2d Cir. 1975) (single interference did not
violate Sixth Amendment).

Isolated instances of mishandling of inmate mail do not constitute

valid constitutional claims. Buie v. Jones, 717 F.2d 925,926 (4th Cir. 1983) (isolated incident of
mishandling does not show actionable pattern or practice). Occasional incidents of delay or nondelivery of mail do not rise to a constitutional level. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430-31
(8th Cir. 1997); Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (1Oth Cir. 1990). The only evidence
Plaintiff offers of injury are conclusory

statements

in his complaint that the conduct of

correctional staff violated his constitutional rights. This does not suffice to allege actual injury as
a result of a single irregularity in the processing of his mail.

4

Conclusion

Date: August 3, 2015
Paul W. rimm
United States District Judge

5