MESTRE v. DOMBROWSKI et al
Filing
24
OPINION & ORDER that Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint 13 is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 10/31/13. (lrw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALFREDO MESTRE,
Plaintiff
v.
MR. DOMBROWSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 12-276 Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
OPINION AND ORDER1
United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Relevant Procedural and Factual History
On November 6, 2012, Plaintiff Alfredo Mestre, an inmate incarcerated at the State
Correctional Institution at Forest in Marienville, Pennsylvania (ASCI-Forest@), filed this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Named as Defendants are two employees of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) at SCI-Forest: Mr. Dombrowski, Unit
Manager (“Dombrowski”), and Kristin Reisinger, Hearing Examiner (“Reisinger”). Plaintiff
claims that Defendants violated his due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the
United States Constitution in connection with a misconduct hearing that was held on August 3,
2012, in connection with a misconduct he received on July 28, 2012, for taking peanut butter and
jelly out of the dining hall without permission. (ECF No. 5-1, Complaint supplement, at p. 1). In
1
The parties have consented to having a United States Magistrate Judge exercise jurisdiction over this matter. [ECF
Nos. 6, 15].
1
particular, Plaintiff claims he did not get a fair hearing because Defendant Reisinger found him
guilty of the charged misconduct without any supporting evidence, and Defendant Dombrowski
interfered with the process by calling Defendant Reisinger about the matter in violation of DOC
policy. (Id. at p. 3). As a result of being found guilty of the misconduct, Plaintiff was given 30
days’ cell restriction and lost his prison job. (Id. at p. 2).
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 13] arguing
that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has
filed a response to Defendants’ motion [ECF No. 21], Defendants have filed a reply brief [ECF
No. 22], and Plaintiff has filed a “counter reply” [ECF No. 23]. This matter is now ripe for
consideration.
B.
Standards of Review
1.
Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint must be accepted as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). A complaint
must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) if it does not allege Aenough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)(rejecting the traditional 12 (b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (specifically applying Twombly analysis beyond the
2
context of the Sherman Act).
The Court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts
as set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Employee Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d
126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) citing Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.
1997). Nor must the court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555, citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). AFactual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.@ Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Although
the United States Supreme Court does Anot require heightened fact pleading of specifics, [the Court
does require] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Id. at 570.
In other words, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff is Arequired to make a >showing=
rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief.@ Smith v. Sullivan, 2008 WL 482469, at *1
(D.Del. February 19, 2008) quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.
2008). AThis >does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,= but instead >simply
calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of= the
necessary element.@ Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
The Third Circuit Court prescribed the following three-step approach to
determine the sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal:
First, the court must >tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must
plead to state a claim.= Second, the court should identify
allegations that, >because they are no more than conclusions, are
not entitled to the assumption of truth.= Finally, >where there are
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement for relief.=
3
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011), citing Santiago v.
Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947,
1950); see also Great Western Mining & Min. Co. v. Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 177
(3d Cir. 2010).
2.
Pro Se Pleadings
Pro se pleadings, Ahowever inartfully pleaded,@ must be held to Aless stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers@ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which
the litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority,
confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant=s
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364
(1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969)
(Apetition prepared by a prisoner... may be inartfully drawn and should be read >with a
measure of tolerance=@); Freeman v. Department of Corrections, 949 F.2d 360 (10th Cir.
1991). Under our liberal pleading rules, a district court should construe all allegations in
a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir.1997)
(overruled on other grounds). See, e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)
(discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard); Markowitz v. Northeast Land Company,
906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990)(same). Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this Court
will consider facts and make inferences where it is appropriate.
4
C.
Discussion
To establish a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff must first
demonstrate the existence of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Shoats v.
Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2000), citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972). If it is
determined that the asserted interest is protected by the Due Process Clause, the Plaintiff must
then show that the state deprived him of the process that is due to protect it. Shoats, 213 F.3d at
143, citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).
The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner=s state created liberty interest is limited to
those situations that impose an Aatypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life.@ Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). AIn deciding
whether a protected liberty interest exists under Sandin, we consider the duration of the
disciplinary confinement and the conditions of that confinement in relation to other prison
conditions.@ Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 531-32 (3d Cir. 2003), citing Shoats, 213 F.3d at
144.
Here, Defendants’ alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with a fair misconduct hearing
ultimately caused him to be placed on 30 days’ cell restriction and cost him his prison job.
Neither of these sanctions implicates a protected liberty or property interest. In particular, thirty
days of cell restriction is far too short to implicate a liberty interest. See, e.g., Smith v.
Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 654 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding that seven months of disciplinary
confinement did not implicate a liberty interest), and Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703 (3d Cir.
1997) (finding that administrative detention for a period of 15 months did not impose atypical
and significant hardship and, thus, did not implicate a liberty interest). Moreover, it is wellsettled in this Circuit that an inmate has no liberty or property interest in his prison job
assignment arising from the Due Process Clause itself, or from any federal statute or prison
regulations. James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627, 630 (3d Cir. 1989). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to
5
demonstrate that a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest was infringed by
Defendants’ alleged conduct. As a result, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim
against Defendants will be dismissed.
An appropriate Order follows.
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALFREDO MESTRE,
Plaintiff
v.
MR. DOMBROWSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 12-276 Erie
Magistrate Judge Baxter
ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2013,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
[ECF No. 13] is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
7
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?