Galeas v. Beck et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for failure to state a claim. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/14/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10-cv-517-RJC
JORGE GALEAS, JR.,
Also known as
Jorge Gevara,
Plaintiff,
v.
THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT;
HATTIE B. PIMPONG; RICK
JACKSON; MICHEAL MORMAN;
BILLIE J. WEAVER; DENNIS
E. MARSHALL; JERLINE
BENNETT; R. WARREN;
FNU CARRIGAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of the complaint filed by Plaintiff
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and his complaint will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1).
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina with a projected release date of

January 24, 2047. According to his complaint, Plaintiff was summoned for a drug test prior to his
transfer to Lumberton Correctional Institution. When he arrived for the test the examining officer
presented him with a specimen cup that had previously been opened and the officer’s thumb and
forefinger, which were not covered by a rubber glove, extended into the cup. Four or five days
after Plaintiff had completed his drug screen he received news that he had tested positive for

1

marijuana and he was charged and the results of the test were confirmed by prison officials after
disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff steadfastly maintained that he could not have tested positive for
marijuana and he appealed the adverse determination complaining first that he was innocent and
second that the prison staff failed to follow established North Carolina procedures in
administering the drug screen and in concluding that he had tested positive for marijuana.
Plaintiff submitted documentation with his complaint tending to show that he completed the
Three-Step Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure and the positive drug result was
found to be valid and that all necessary protocol was followed. (Doc. No. 1-5). See N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 148-118.1 – 148-118.9 (Article 11A).
Among other claims for relief, the Plaintiff moves for any order requiring prison officials
to follow state policy and to require that a blood test be administered rather than a urine test “in
the future to avoid conspiracy to obstruct justice by prison officials and violation of due process
in order to prevent false charges and deprivation of constitutional rights.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4).
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), “the court shall review ... a complaint in a civil

action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.” During this review, the “court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id. § 1915A(b)(1). The Court must also dismiss
the complaint it is appears that the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages from an individual that
is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(2).
Upon review, this Court must determine whether the complaint raises an indisputably
meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or

2

delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). A pro se complaint
must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal
construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in
the complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep't of
Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
III.

DISCUSSION
In his complaint, Plaintiff contends prison officials involved in his drug screen and in his

disciplinary hearing failed to follow established policies of the North Carolina Department of
Corrections, which is now known at the Department of Public Safety.
A claim under § 1983 must implicate federal rights as those rights are protected by
federal laws or the Constitution. Kendall v. Chesapeake, 174 F.3d 437, 440 (4th Cir. 1999). Put
another way, “Section 1983 itself creates no rights; rather it provides ‘a method for vindicating
federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Id. (quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994)).
Plaintiff contends that not only were prison administrative procedures not followed, but
that the lack of adherence to such procedures resulted in a denial of his right to due process as
guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the “Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance
procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily established by the state.” Adams v. Rice,
40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1995). And even if the Court were to assume that one or more missteps
were taken during the drug testing procedure and in the disciplinary proceedings, Plaintiff would
still have failed to state an actionable claim under federal law. See Riccio v. Cnty. of Fairfax,
907 F.2d 1459, 1469 (4th Cir. 1990) (explaining that “[i]f state law grants more procedural rights
than the Constitution would otherwise require, a state’s failure to abide by that law is not a
federal due process issue.”).

3

Dissatisfaction with the results of a drug screen which he contends was not properly
administered or his belief that internal policies were not properly followed will not support a
claim for relief in this § 1983 proceeding. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any
claim which could entitle him to relief in this matter and the complaint will therefore be
dismissed.
IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure

to state a claim.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this civil case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 14, 2014

4