COYNE v. ZICKEFOOSE et al
Filing
8
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/7/2011. (bdk, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMES MICHAEL COYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONNA ZICKEFOOSE, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civ. Case No. 10-4852 (NLH)
O P I N I O N
APPEARANCES:
James Michael Coyne, Pro Se
02954-049
FCI Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff, James Michael Coyne, currently confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, New Jersey, has
submitted this civil complaint which allege violations of his
constitutional rights, and seeks damages pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388, 389 (1971).
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and
seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
Based on
Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigence, this Court will grant his
request.
At this time, the Court must review the complaint to
determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or
malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
For the following reasons, the complaint will be dismissed, with
prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff states that while confined at the FCI, Fort Dix,
he was employed at UNICOR Federal Prison Industries From July
2004 until May 2009.
He was terminated on May 4, 2009 by the
plant manger, defendant Nelson Elias.
Upon termination,
Plaintiff requested the “Form 96,” stating the reason for
termination, which he has not received.
Attached to his complaint, Plaintiff submits his BP-8 form,
which reveals that Plaintiff believed he was terminated for
“security needs.”
His request for the form was denied.
filed a Freedom of Information Act Request.
He then
The reply to his
Freedom of Information Act Request informs him that he can “seek
a local review of [his] central file by contacting institution
staff to make arrangements for review.”
The appeal of that
decision is also attached, advising Plaintiff that “if BOP
locates responsive records, it will send any and all releasable
2
records to you directly, subject to any fees.”
Plaintiff has not
received a response from the BOP.
Plaintiff argues that his rights have been violated and that
he has suffered monetary damages as a result of his job
termination.
He names as defendants Donna Zickefoose, the warden
of the FCI; Glen Lawhorn, the Associate Warden; and Nelson Elias,
the Plant Manager.
He argues that he was unable to appeal his
termination because he was never given the document to appeal the
decision, which would presumably contain the reason for
termination.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub.L. No. 104134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996),
requires a district court to review a complaint in a civil action
in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks
redress against a governmental employee or entity.
The Court is
required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss
any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.
See 28 U.S.C. §§
This action is subject to sua sponte
screening for dismissal under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B)
because plaintiff is proceeding as an indigent.
3
Recently, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), the
Supreme Court refined the standard for summary dismissal of a
complaint that fails to state a claim.
The Court examined Rule
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides
that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Fed. R.
Citing its recent opinion in Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for the proposition that
"[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do,’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555), the Supreme Court held that, to prevent a summary
dismissal, a civil complaint must now allege "sufficient factual
matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible.
This then
"allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
See id. at
1948; see also Twombly, 505 U.S. at 555, & n.3; Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009).
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently provided
detailed and highly instructive guidance as to what type of
allegations qualify as sufficient to pass muster under the Rule 8
pleading standard.
See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d
224, 230-34 (3d Cir. 2008).
The Court of Appeals explained, in
relevant part:
4
[T]he pleading standard can be summed up thus:
"stating ... a claim requires a complaint with enough
factual matter (taken as true) to suggest" the required
element. This "does not impose a probability
requirement at the pleading stage[ ]" but . . . "calls
for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence of" the necessary
element.
Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 (internal citations omitted).
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the
Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the
plaintiff.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007)
(following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
See also United States
v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992).
B.
Bivens Claims
Although Plaintiff names 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as his basis for
jurisdiction, the complaint is more properly brought as an action
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of his
civil rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
In
Bivens, the Supreme Court held that one is entitled to recover
monetary damages for injuries suffered as a result of federal
officials' violations of the Fourth Amendment.
In doing so, the
Supreme Court created a new tort as it applied to federal
officers, and a federal counterpart to the remedy created by 42
5
U.S.C. § 1983.1
The Supreme Court has also implied Bivens
damages remedies directly under the Eighth Amendment, see Carlson
v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), and the Fifth Amendment, see Davis
v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979).
Bivens actions are simply the federal counterpart to § 1983
actions brought against state officials who violate federal
constitutional or statutory rights.
See Egervary v. Young, 366
F.3d 238, 246 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1049 (2005).
Both are designed to provide redress for constitutional
violations.
Thus, while the two bodies of law are not “precisely
parallel”, there is a “general trend” to incorporate § 1983 law
into Bivens suits.
See Chin v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 21, 24 (2d Cir.
1987).
In order to state a claim under Bivens, a claimant must show
(1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States; and (2) that the deprivation of the right
1
Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory ... subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law,
suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress ....
6
was caused by an official acting under color of federal law.
See
Mahoney v. Nat'l Org. For Women, 681 F. Supp. 129, 132 (D. Conn.
1987) (citing Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149,
155-56 (1978)).
C.
Plaintiff’s Claims Must Be Dismissed.
The gist of Plaintiff's claim concerns the loss of his
UNICOR employment, and his attempt to acquire a form with the
reasons for his termination.
Although Plaintiff’s application to
compel (docket entry 7) states that he was “terminated from his
position with UNICOR Federal Prison Industries without
explanation,” (Application, p. 1), Plaintiff’s submissions
attached to his complaint reveal that he was informed that he was
terminated for “security needs.” (Complt., BP-8 Form, wherein
Plaintiff requests:
“Please inform me of the underlying
‘security needs’ the SOI used to justify terminating me from
UNICOR.
Additionally, please provide me with a copy of the 96
Form.”).
In Bivens, the Supreme Court “recognized for the first time
an implied private action for damages against federal officers
alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional rights.”
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66 (2001).
However, since it is long established that “the Due Process
Clause does not protect every change in the conditions of
confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner,”
7
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 478 (1995), Plaintiff's
employment-related allegations do not state a claim: prisoners
have no protected liberty or property interest in retaining any
particular prison employment.2
See Bulger v. United States
Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48 (5th Cir. 1995) (federal inmate has
no liberty or property interest in a Federal Prison Industries
job assignment); James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627 (3d Cir. 1989)
(same); Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 1982).
While Plaintiff's complaint and submissions clearly
demonstrate Plaintiff's disappointment over loss of his job and
seeks answers for that loss, Plaintiff provides the Court with no
legal basis for remedy.
Plaintiff’s requested relief for
monetary damages for lost compensation and future pay are without
merit, and Plaintiff's claims based on his loss of UNICOR employ
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim; such dismissal
will be with prejudice.
/s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
At Camden, New Jersey
Dated: November 7, 2011
2
Plaintiff's allegations do not suggest that any other
constitutional clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be
implicated in this matter, e.g., Plaintiff does not assert that
he was discriminated as a member of a protected class.
8
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?