Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01378—Gl\/IS Document 41-2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 1 of 4
l of l i;)()Cill\/ll;ii\lrI`
DERRICK L. JACKSON, Plaintiff`, v. SHERESE BRE\·V`IN(}'I`ON-CARR,
RALPHAEL VVILLIAMS, JOSEPH REAGAN, VVILLIAM HOOSIER, AUDREY
KENNY, and DWAYNE KINSEY, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 97-270-.IJF
UNI"[`[ED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH.E DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
1999 [/QS. Dist. LEXLY 535
January 14, 1999, Decided
January 15, 1999, Filed
DISPOSITION: [*1] Defendants Motion For
Summary Judgment (D,l, 22} GRANTED. OUTCOME: The court granted defendant prison
ot`ticials' motion for summary judgment because plaintiff
CASE SUMMARY: inmate failed to present a cognizable ciaim of malicious
prosecution or ofconstitntional violations.
PROCEDURAL 1’OSTUI{E: Defendant prison LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
officials tiled a motion. for summary judgment in a 42
U.S.C.S. 1983 suit brought by plaintiff inmate, which
alleged malicious prosecution, violation of the Civil Procedure > Summary Judgmer-it > Burden.; of
substantive due process rights guaranteed by U.S. Const. Production & Proof
amend. XIV, and cruel and unusual punishment in Civil Procedure > .S`ummory Jiu1'gmeii.t > Surmriuiji
violation ot`U.S. Const. amend. VIII. .I££l1·gHl€}iItYI(iHd(II’d
[NNI} Fen'. R. Civ. P. 56(cj provides that a party is
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff inmate sued defendant prison entitled to summary judgment where the pleadings,
officials under 42 US.C.S. § /.983, alleging malicious depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
prosecution, denial of substantive due process rights in on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
violation of Const. amend. XIV, and cruel and there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the
unusual punishment in violation. of U.S. Const. amend. moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
VHI. Defendants moved fbr suinmary judgment pursuant A party seeking summary judgment always bears the
to Fee'. R. Civ. P. 56(tj. Defcndants‘ motion was granted. initial responsibility of infonming the court ofthe basis
The court rejected plaintiffs malicious prosecution for its motion, and identifying those portions of the
claim, concluding that probable cause existed for pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
plaintiffs arrest and subsequent prosecution. The court admissions on fiie, together with the affidavits, if any,
rejected plaintiffs claim that his substantive due process winch it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
rights were violated when defendants placed him in issue of material fact.
administrative segregation, holding that plaintiff had no
constitutionally protected interest in a particular Civil Procedure > Summary Jutigment > Burrteus of
classification with the prison system. The court similarly Production & Proof
rejected plaintiffs claim that his loss of prison. [HN2] \»Vherc the nonmoving party opposing summary
employment violated his due process rights. Finally, the judgment has the burden ofproof at trial on the issue for
court held that the conditions of plaintiffs confinement which summary judgment is sought, he must then make a
did not rise to a constitutionally impermissible- levei, and showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
so did not violate the Eighth Amendment. element essential to his case. if the nonmoving party fails

Case 1:04-cv-O1378—G|\/IS Document 41-2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 2 of 4
Page 2
l999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 535, *
lo make a Sufflcient showing on an essential element of For Defendants: Allison L. Peters, Esquire, Delaware
his ease with respect to which he has the burden of prootQ Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware.
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Moreover, the mere existence of some evidence in JUDGES: Joseph J, Farnan, Ir., UNITED S'l`A'l`ES
support of the nonmoving party is not sulheient to DISTRICTJUDGE.
support a denial of a. motion for SllI"1"il`1lH1`y judgrnentg
there must be enough evidence to enable a jury to OPINIONBY: Joseph]. Farnan, Jr.
reasonably find for the uonmoving party on that issue.
` OPINION:
Constirurimmi Law > Qvfl Rzghts Ergarccmertt > Civil OPINION
Rrghts Act qj"1871 > Coverage
[HN3] The tiling of criminal charges wlitliout probable January 14: 1999
cause and tor reasons of personal animosity is actionable
under 4 2 US.CrS. _§`p I QS?. While a grandjury indictment Wilmington: Dclawam
or presentnrent is prima tacrc evidence of probable cause,
such rirna facie evidence can be rebutted by evidence , I
that tllfe indictment or presentnient is procured by fraud, Fm-mm’ Ch1€iJudgC`
perjury or other corrupt rneansr Presently before the Court is a Motion For Summary
Judgment {D1. 22) filed by Defendants, Sheresc
Cunstirutiwml Law > Subsmntivc Duc Process > Scope Brewington-Carr, Raphael Williams, Joseph Reagan,
r:fPmmcrimz William lloosier and Dwayne Kinsey. Plaintiff, Derrick
[HN4] ln order to establish a claim for violation of due L. Jackson, an inmate under the supervision of the
process rights under the U.S. Const. amend. XTV, a Delaware Department of Correction, tiled the instant
plaintiff must show that (1) a constitutionally protected action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint,
liberty or property interest is in issue, and (2) the state Plaintiff alleges a substantive due process violation based
utilizes constitutionally deficient procedures in its on his arrest, prosecution, and institutional transfer
deprivation of that interest. The applicable statutes and resulting from his involvement in a physical altercation
regulations governing the prison system do not provide with another inmate while he was housed at the l\/lulti~
inmates with a liberty interest in remaining free tiiom Purpose Criminal Justice Facility. ln addition, Plaintiff
administrative segregation or tlrom a particular alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when
classillcation within the prison system. Prison officials he lost his prison employment and was forced to sleep on
can transfer a prisoner to administrative segregation t`or a mattress on the prison floor. For the reasons [*2] set
any reason, or no reason, so long as the reason is not forth below, Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment
based on race, religion, or the exercise of a protected free will be granted.
mhaeht- BACKGROUND
Cnnstitutimml Law >Substm1.tive Due Process > Scope The allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint arise in
qf1’r0tecti01-z cxonnection with Dete·ndants' response to an altercation
lHN5l N0 r¤1=·>v¤¤tDe1aw¤re Statute creates at property or between Plaintiff and another inmate. Orr June 28, 1996:
liberty interest in prison employment. Prison Plaintiff and inmate James Price were involved in a
employment is a discretionary opportunity, and heated argument, which escalated into a physical
therefore, an inmate has no entitlement to a job while in altercation, (Di. 2). According to the reports tiled in
prison. Because a prisoner has no property or liberty connection with the investigation of the incident,
interest in his employment, a prisoner cannot, as a rnattet Plaintiff and Price initially engaged in a fist fight. During
of law, state a eognizable claim for violation of due the tight, Plaintiff threw a pot of hot coffee on Price
process based upon the loss oifhis prison employment, causing him to sustain second degree burns on his neck,
back, shoulder and lateral areas. {D.l, 245 Ex. A). As a
C()}lS{ff£!If0Ii(l[LHl1*>`C1J‘l£(?[& Unuscml Pmrislzmeut result of the incident, Plaintiff`, after receiving medical
[HN 6] Where continement to a prison floor is temporary treatment, was sent to administrative segregation.
Ling to the_lumVmiab1_hty_Qmicd Spam? Suih ijwluucmcm Subsequently Plaintiff was arrested and charged
does not use to a constitutionally rrnpernnssrble level _ ’ 4 , y
and dwg Hm mime Us- COHSL amend V-my with nunibeir of offenses, including assault in a
detention taeility. According to the Superior Lourt
COUNSEL: Dcmck LI Jackson) Plaintiff, Pm SC. Criminal Docket for Plaintiffs criminal ease, the attorney
general tiled a nolle prosequt, thereby withdrawing the

Case 1:04-cv-01378—Gl\/IS Document 41-2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 3 of 4
Page 3
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 535, *
State’s prosecution of Plaintiff for the above-described [HN3] lt is well-established in this Circuit, that "the
incident. (DI. 24, Ex. D). filing of criminal charges without probable cause and for
. .. . .i`—t‘·’t`.rjb1d
With respect to .Plainti‘ft`s instant crvrl [*3] action, gzaggiiqgirf dl], fc/gO?§d Eibwllfgggi
Defendants filed an Answer and a Motion P or Summary Wh. ` I . _ . ‘ . .
I . _ D . . , I. _ . . ile a grand Jury in rctment or presentment is prima
Judgment rn response to llaintiffs Complaint. Plaintiff . . __ , _ _ _. .
. , . , facie evidence of probable cause, such prima facie
failed to respond to Defendants Motion, and the Court . [ _ ._ _ ,
. . . - . . evidence may bc rebutted by evrdcnce that the
ordered Plaintiff to file an answering brief no later than . . _ _ ._
. ,_ . . , . indictment or prescntment was p1.ocured by fraud,
December 4, 1998. (Dl. 26). lo date, Plaintiff has failed . _ _ _ 1 _
. . wer ur or other corrn tmeans. Rose v. Barrie, 87/ P.2d
i l J Y P
to iile a response. Accordingly, the Court will proceed to 33] 353 Gd Cir 1,989)
resolve Defendants Motion based on the papers before it. ’ ` `
,_ , According to the Superior Court docket for the
SIANDARD OF RILVIEW criminal case commenced by the State against Plaintiff,
[HN 1] /r`en'ei·n/ Rafe of Civil Pr·oceriui·e 5 6(c) an indictment was returned by the Grand Jury on August
provides that a party is entitled to summary judgment 5, 1996, charging Plaintiff with Assault in a Detention
where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to Facility, Offensive Touching, Promoting Prison
interrogatories, and admissions on tile, together with the Contraband, and Possession ofa Deadly Weapon During
affidavits, il` any, show that there is no genuine issue of the Commission of a Felony. (Dl. 24, Ex. D). Under U
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to Rose, the Court concludes that this indictment is prima
judgment as a matter of iaw." A party seeking summary facie evidence that probable cause existed to arrest and
judgment always bears the initial responsibility of prosecute Plaintiff. Thus, consistent with their initial
informing the Court of the basis for its motion, and burden on sununaryjudgmcnt, Defendants have set forth
identifying those portions of the "pleadings, depositions, the basis for their motion and have [*6] identified
answers to interrogatories and admissions on tile, evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of
together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes material fact.
1€iCT?OnSt;;I§2ihaA§l;$§HC€ fifha SGHEES ISSUE Oi lilatcrill Because Defendants have met their initial burden,
ac ‘ . i f _ Clgd if _ 5 H0;];HOVgHPd pm the burden shiris to Plaintiff to set forth specific facts, by
Opposing ,Summmy.fu Pmw QRS lc [ ] . ul im Q means of affidavits or other evidence, to illustrate that
proof at trial on the issue for which summary Judgment is _ r . . _ _. . _ . _
. - . there is a genuine issue for trial. Specifically, with regard
sought, he must then make a showing sufficient to to Plamtiffs false [mast and malicious prosecution
establish the existence of an element essential to his case. . . . _ . .
. . . .- . . claims, Plaintiff must set forth evidence showing that the
lf the rronmovrng party fails to make a suffrc1en.t showing mdictmgm WELS mcmcd by FCTJUHOUS fmudulcm or
on an essential element of his case with respect to which ` P t _ , . · ° ` _
1 ] _ th b _d__ { _ i, [ . _t . [H d corrupt means. ln this case, Ilaintrff has not answered
if Pt C “' ““ O l’“"’.= if "f“?"’“‘g pal Y P ‘?T‘ 1 G naieaaaarst risticii, and that has ner Orierea any titers,
to iudgmcnt as a matter of law. Ce/otex Corp. v. Cutrett, b . _ . _ . __
· , . , y means of afhdavrt or other evidence, to rebut
477 U.S. 3./7, 322, 9} L. Ed. 2n' 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 _ . _ . r _ _
. . . , . Defendants prima facie evidence of probable cause.
(/986). Moreover, the mere existence of some evidence Accmdmgly the Court mncludgq that pmbnsble CNRS
m iuppmlg in ;m.}]1G]]FfOV1]1§.pm'? will Um ijfgbfflcielg existed for the arrest and subsequent prosecution of
tg éuppm df LH? O 131319 [OU Pr Sumn§;y~]m.gIfm}’ Plaintiff`, and therefore, Defendants Motion Por
{ me must cm (imug] wu Cm? EU Cm B d july `U Summary Judgment on these claims willbe grained.
reasonably find for the nonmovrng party on that issue.
/ln.r/eixron v. Liberty Lobby [nc. 477 U. S, 242 249, 9/ L. .. . . . . 4 .
.. . ' ’ l iI.l. .t· t Ad t··‘t S · t
err. 2r1'2O2, rans.cJi.25a5(1as6i mm " ° ""ms "‘ M egmga '°"
_(_ , qq )N To the extent that Plaintiff contends that Defendants
Dm ’b” ` H violated his due process rights by placing hiin in
. I _ _ . . P . administrative segregation pending the investigation of
L li A SE AI wht and Malmous msecumm the incident between Plaintiff and imnate Price, the Court
ln his Complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendants will likewise grant surrrmary [*7] judgment in favor of
violated his substantive due process rights when Plaintiff Defendants. [HN4] ln order to establish a claim for
was arrested, prosecuted and institutionally transferred as violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth
a result of his altercation with inmate Price. ln this Amendment, a plaintiff must show that {1) a
regard, Plaintiffs Complaint can be reasonably and fairly constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is in
construed [*5] raising claims of false arrest and issue, and (2) the state utilized constitutionally deficient
malicious prosecution. procedures in its deprivation of that interest. Bortrd of
Regents v. Rot/t, 408 US. 564, 33 L. /Er/. 2r/ 548, 92 S.
Ct. 270/ (/972). This Court has repeatedly determined

Case 1:04-cv-01378—Gl\/IS Document 41-2 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 4 of 4
Page 4
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 535, *
that the applicable statutes and regulations governing the
Delaware prison system do not provide inmates with a IV. Conditions of Confinement
liberty interest in remaining free hom administrative _ l. _. ._ .
segregation or hom a particular classification within the Anmigiiigilt l_iEm2His§;l_C ;?£§;gSW,¤;:;a§1C TEEEEEE
prison system. See e.g. Blizzrmf v. I/Vrrtson, 892 F. Sapp. to qlccp GH tl; prmm Hum Numerous Courts ii this
EQZLCDS Dl,G§`7;.Qi`?§5C?SiiBIT[Ljgggli O}{_j?$i{i;i/i{Cl circuit have recognized the unfortunate circumstances
` _` pi " ' i .· ` L ’ _ ( Qi nib iii incident to prison overcrowding and have confronted the
prisoner has no constitutionally protected interest rrr issue Ofmmatcs ming furccd IO Slccp Cm the HON SSG
l”*?`“°*‘]“¥- ‘?i“°““l°t‘“"“ tm] °‘?“‘“’““g °“S“’?‘): this eg. rraarrrri it crrrr of r>rrrrarrarprr.ra rcs? us our
prison oltrciais may transter a prisoner to administrative LFXN 6580 1,987 WL MSM, (E D Pr; [987) Humck F
S’*g1"’t°‘“°“ if my "‘”’“*"“= °* “" "““°“i SO mg at dw prirrairarprrrr} arm Sys/cm rosa Us nar (mars
reason is not ased on race, reli ion, or tre exercise of a l ` ’ i ' ` i U ' 'l . `
proiootod free speech right. Id gecanse Plaintiff has [*3] M Q j ;VL“;'l?5—$8 (E P f986)h(¤c§1ectirrg
no constitutionally protected interest in a particular Cmiuby [gl i { €m_COi;"]§ipqLHtt,;) dt if _OGI_1§
classification or placement within the prison system, the tcmifomfy uc 0 1 C mmvzila HW 0 G 5Q3U?’ suc
Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary fgnmiwmgigl dflcg fmt, gw to la F°"“““?;’“j‘H}’
judgment on Plairrtiffs claim that his transfer to 1,r5§;H3liS1D?__f I Fixlgvghbcclggg ill
administrative segregation violated his due process Pa 198% 5 " " ` ` ' ' " A
rights. ' '
Although Plaintiff does not specifically state the
111. Loss of Employment length of time he was required to sleep on the floor, a
ri rrr; mains rrarimrr ams tra the mtmtdum ~t¤tt¤ tt stmt is ts
.` T. ’ ‘ . . ` , . Plaintiffs grievance indicates that the measure was
its et triplets esttsymttt related he ¤¤=e¤e¤¤¤¤t itmpsiiiy and as rasairrrr was is it is i
llghis`. will his _ Claim lcgguimg his mmficr to cell as soon as bed space became available. (D.I. 24, Ex.
administrative segregation, Plaintiff must establish that E) Plaimiffhas mcfcmd BO Gvidcmc to 1_€butD€fBHdam§,
tt he pretest t*‘¤rt=¤>t et their met it ttm that prr..ta~.·i is at isa was ei
employment in order to state a. cognizahle claim that the temporary mwsum Thus thc Court concludes That
lim Oi im Cniphiymcm Vmiflicd his dug PTOCCSS ughm Plaintiffs temporary confinement to the prison floor did
lgxamrnrng this issue, the Delaware state courts have not me to the ING, Oi. H Constitutional Violation
igpmiadiy, ilpld il-TN?] Him. HO rgleviint Dciaimm Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants Motion
statutes create a property or liberty interest rn prison Fm qummar Jud mgm
employment. See e.g. Drrttrm v. Watson, /994 Dc/. ` y g `
LEX/S 36/, /994 WL /6446, *3 (Del. Super. Ct. I994), CONCLUSION
atfd, 649 A.2r/ 227 (Der'. /994). Agreeing with the State . _ _ . , _ . _ _
courts, this Court has concluded that prison employment For thc masons Ci]SCuSb('5i’ Dgfcndams MUUOH POI
is a discretionary opportunity, and therefore, an inmate Summary Judgmcm Wm be ghmtc '
has no entitlement to a job while in prison. Abdul-Akbrrr An appropriate Order will be entered.
it Deptrrtmerrt cgfCo.¤·r·e2cr‘i0r·rs, i*9] 9/ O F. Supp. 986 (D.
De/. /995) (holding that inmate failed to state a claim for ORDER
violation of due process where inmate was summarily Ar Wilmington, rhjg ict day of Jarrirmy 1999, for the
llfcd {mm PUSOU .l9b» because inmates haw H0 reasons set iorth in the Opinion issued this date;
constitutional right t.o gainful employment). Because F, _ . F _
Pla.irrtift" has no property or liberty interest in his , U IS HEREBY ORDERED.d?ut Dcfmdams Mmmm
employment, Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, state a for Summer Judgment (DL 22) is GRANTED
cognizahle claim for violation of due process based upon josaph j_ pamgmr jp
the loss of his prison employment. Accordingly, the _ I X ` M _ _ _ __
Court will grant Defendants Motion For Summary Job UNITED S YATE5 DISTRTCI }UD(Jb [4] ll
with respect to this issue.