Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00921-SLR Document 69-6 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 1P逤2 9fS
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1999 WL 27124 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
C altercation with another inmate while he was housed
Briefs and Other Related Docrunents at the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility. In
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. addition, Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional
United States District Cotn·t,D. Delaware. rights were violated when he lost his prison
Derrick L. JACKSON, Plaintiff, employment and was forced to sleep on a mattress
v. on the prison floor. For the reasons set forth below,
SI-IERESE BREWINGTON-CARR, Ralphael Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment will be
Williams, Joseph Reagan, William Hoosier, Audrey granted.
Kenny, and Dwayne Kinsey, Defendants.
No. Civ.A. 97-270—JJF.
BACKGROUND
Jan. 15, 1999.
The allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint arise in
connection with Defendants response to an
Derrick L. Jackson, MPCJF, Wilmington, DE, altercation between Plaintiff and another imnate. On
plaintiff, pro se. June 28, 1996, Plaintiff and inmate James Price
Allison L. Peters, Department of Justice, were involved in a heated argument, which
Wihnington, DE, for Sherese Brewington-Carr, escalated into a physical altercation. (D.I.2).
defendant. According to the reports filed in connection with
Allison L. Peters, (See above), for Ralphael the investigation of the incident, Plaintiff and Price
Williams, defendant. initially engaged in a fist iight. During the fight,
Allison L. Peters, (See above), for Joseph Reagan, Plaintiff threw a pot of hot coffee on Price causing
Chief of Security, defendant. him to sustain second degree bums on his neck,
Allison L. Peters, (See above), for William Hoosier, back, shoulder and lateral areas. (D.I.24, Ex. A). As
defendant. a result of the incident, Plaintiff, after receiving
Allison L. Peters, (See above), for Audrey Kenny, medical treatment, was sent to administrative
defendant. segregation.
Allison L. Peters, (See above), for Dwayne Kinsey,
defendant. Subsequently, Plaintiff was arrested and charged
with a number of offenses, including assault in a
OPINION detention facility. According to the Superior Court
Criminal Docket for Plaintiffs criminal case, the
FARNAN, Chief}. attomey general tiled a nolle prosequi, thereby
*1 Presently before the Court is a Motion For withdrawing the State's prosecution of Plaintiff for
Summary Judgment (D.I.22) tiled by Defendants, the above-described incident. (D.I.24, Ex. D).
Sherese Brewington-Carr, Raphael Williams,
Joseph Reagan, William Hoosier and Dwayne With respect to Plaintiffs instant civil action,
Kinsey. Plaintiff, Derrick L. Jackson, an inmate Defendants tiled an Answer and a Motion For
under the supervision of the Delaware Department Summary Judgment in response to Plaintiffs
of Correction, tiled the instant action pursuant to 42 Complaint. Plaintiff failed to respond to I)efendants'
U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a Motion, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to tile an
substantive due process violation based on his answering brief no later than December 4, 1998.
arrest, prosecution, and institutional transfer (D.I.26). To date, Plaintiff has failed to tile a
resulting irom his involvement in a physical response. Accordingly, the Court will proceed to
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://printwestlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055800000... 1/1 7/2006

Case 1 :04-cv-00921-SLR Document 69-6 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 2pg§g3 Of5
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, I999 WL 27124 (D.DeI.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
resolve Defendants Motion based on the papers Plaintiffs Complaint can be reasonably and fairly
before it. construed as raising claims of false arrest and
malicious prosecution.
STANDARD OF REVIEW It is well-established in this Circuit, that “the filing
of criminal charges without probable cause and for
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that reasons of personal animosity is actionable under §
a party is entitled to summary judgment where "the l983." Burt v. Ferresse, 871 F.2d 14, 16 (3d
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, Cir.]989). While a grand jury indictment or
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, presentment is prima facie evidence of probable
if any, show that there is no genuine issue of cause, such prima facie evidence may be rebutted
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to by evidence that the indictment or presentment was
judgment as a matter of law." A party seeking procured by fraud, perjury or other corrupt means.
summary judgment always bears the initial Rosen Bertie, 871 F.2d 331, 353 (3d Cir.l989).
responsibility of informing the Court of the basis for
its motion, and identifying those portions of the " According to the Superior Court docket for the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories criminal case commenced by the State against
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, Plaintiff] an indictment was retumed by the Grand
if any," which it believes demonstrate the absence Jury on August 5, 1996, charging Plaintiff with
of a genuine issue of material fact. Where, as here, Assault in a Detention Facility, Offensive Touching,
the nonmoving party opposing summary judgment Promoting Prison Contraband, and Possession of a
has the burden of proof at trial on the issue for Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a
which summary judgment is sought, he must then Felony. (D.I.24, Ex. D). Under Rose, the Court
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence concludes that this indictment is prima facie
of an element essential to his case. if the nonmoving evidence that probable cause existed to arrest and
party fails to make a sufficient showing on an prosecute Plaintiff. Thus, consistent with their
essential element of his case with respect to which initial burden on summary judgment, Defendants
he has the burden of proof} the moving party is have set forth the basis for their motion and have
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex identified evidence demonstrating the absence of a
Corp. v. Catreet, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). genuine issue of material fact.
Moreover, the mere existence of some evidence in
support of the nonmoving party will not be Because Defendants have met their initial burden,
sufficient to support a denial of a motion for the burden shifts to Plaintiff to set forth specific
summary judgment; there must be enough evidence facts, by means of affidavits or other evidence, to
to enable a jury to reasonably find for the illustrate that there is a genuine issue for trial.
nonmoving party on that issue. Anderson v. Liberty Specifically, with regard to Plaintiffs false arrest
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). and malicious prosecution claims, Plaintiff must set
forth evidence showing that the indictment was
procured by perjurious, fraudulent or corrupt
DISCUSSION means. In this case, Plaintiff has not answered
Defendants Motion, and thus has not offered any
I. False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution facts, by means of affidavit or other evidence, to
rebut Defendants' prima facie evidence of probable
cause. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
*2 ln his Complaint, Plaintiff contends that probable cause existed for the arrest and subsequent
Defendants violated his substantive due process prosecution of Plaintiff] and therefore, Defendants'
rights when Plaintilf was arrested, prosecuted and Motion For Summary Judgment on these claims
institutionally transferred as a result of his will be granted
altercation with inmate Price. In this regard,
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print. west1aw.c0m/ delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A005 5 800000... l/17/2006

Case 1 :04-cv-00921-SLR Document 69-6 Filed 01/23/2006 Page Ppogg,44 0f5
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1999 WL 27124 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
II. Transfer to Administrative Segregation held that no relevant Delaware statutes create a
property or liberty interest in prison employment.
To the extent that Plaintiff contends that Defendants See eg. Dutton v. Watson, 1994 WL 164486:3
violated his due process rights by placing him in (Del,Super.Ct.l994), cjfal 649 A.2d 227 (Del.l994)
administrative segregation pending the investigation . Agreeing with the state courts, this Court has
of the incident between Plaintiff and inmate Price, concluded that prison employment is a discretionary
the Court will likewise grant summary judgment in opportunity, and therefore, an inmate has no
favor of Defendants. In order to establish a claim entitlement to a job while in prison. Abdul-Akbar v.
for violation of due process rights under the Department of Corrections, 910 F.Supp. 986
Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that (D.Del.l995) (holding that inmate failed to state a
(l) a constitutionally protected liberty or property claim for violation of due process where inmate was
interest is in issue, and (2) the state utilized summarily fu·ed from prison job, because inmates
constitutionally deficient procedures in its have no constitutional right to gainful employment).
deprivation of that interest. Board of Regents v. Because Plaintiff has no property or liberty interest
Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). This Court has in his employment, Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of
repeatedly determined that the applicable statutes law, state a cognizable claim for violation of due
and regulations governing the Delaware prison process based upon the loss of his prison
system do not provide inmates with a liberty interest employment. Accordingly, the Court will grant
in remaining free from administrative segregation or Defendants Motion For Summary Job with respect
from a particular classification within the prison to this issue.
system. See eg. Blizzard v. Watson, 892 F.Supp.
587, 597 (D.Del.l995); Corrigan v. State of
Delaware, 957 F.Supp. 1376, ISSS (D.Del.l997) [V_ Conditions ofConf'1_r1ement
(holding that prisoner has no constitutionally
protected interest in particular classification and Lastly, Plaintiff contends that his Eighth
collecting cases). Thus, prison officials may t1·ansfer Amendment rights were violated when he was
a prisoner to administrative segregation for any required to sleep on the prison floor. Numerous
reason, or no reason, so long as the reason is not courts in this circuit have recognized the
based on race, religion, or the exercise of a unfortunate circumstances incident to prison
protected free speech right. Id. Because Plaintiff has overcrowding and have confronted the issue of
no constitutionally protected interest in a particular inmates being forced to sleep on the floor. See eg.
classification or placement within the prison system, Randall v. City of Philadehohia, 1987 WL 14383
the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to (E.D. Pa 1987); Huttick v. Philadelphia Prison
summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim that his System, 1986 WL 10558 (E.D.Pa.1986) (collecting
transfer to administrative segregation violated his cases). Where confinement to the floor is temporary
due process rights. due to the inavailability of bed space, such
confmement does not rise to a constitutionally
impermissible level. See e .g. Lawrence v. Owens,
lll. Loss sf Emplsrmshl resi wr. 12753:1 (E.D.Pa.1987).
*3 In his Complaint, Hext COHt€HdS that thC dogs not Specincally State the
loss sf l‘llS Pllsllll °mPl°Ym°m Vlolilwd his length of time he was required to sleep on the floor,
constitutional rights. Like his claim regarding his a memorandum Wyman by prison Officials in
lIHI`lSf€I° to 3dI'l‘liI‘llSl.`l’&[lVB SBg]'Cg3tiOH, l'I1l1St response to Plamtims gricyancg indicates that thg
sswhlish that he has s prslsslsd Pfsrrflr sf llhsrlv measure was temporary and that Plaintiff was to be
llllclesl lll Pllsoll °lllPl°Ylll€lll ln °l`d°l' to smc 4 transferred to a cell as soon as bed space became
sssslzahls slsim that lhs lsss sl his smqlsymshl available. (D.I.24, ax. 12). rriiriirrf his errata no
vislatsd his duh vrsssss rlshls- Elsemlhlhs this evidence to rebut Defeiidiiiits evidence that
l$$ll€» lhs= Delaware Slam 99l-ms ha‘·"* l'€P°al°dlY Plaintiffs confinement to the floor was a temporary
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055 800000... 1/17/2006

Case 1 :04-cv-00921-SLF1 Document 69-6 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 4pg§g.5 0f5
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1999 WL 27124 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
measure. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs
temporary confmement to the prison floor did not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants
Motion For Stunmary Judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Defendants Motion For
Summary Judgment will be granted.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
D.Del.,1999.
Jackson v. Sherese Brewington-Carr
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 1999 WL 27124
(D.Del.)
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)
· l:9'/CVOO270 (Docket) (May. 28, 1997)
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://printwestlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=A0055800000... 1/17/2006