Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

John Fawley, #320139 v. Inmate Grievance Office

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND


April 17, 2013

JOHN FAWLEY, #320139
PLAINTIFF,
v.
INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alexander Williams Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff is a Maryland Division of Correction ("DOC") inmate housed at the Eastern Correctional Institution ("ECI"). On April 11, 2013, the court received for filing this self-represented 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, in which he complains that the Maryland administrative remedy procedure ("ARP") process does not work. Plaintiff states that he submitted an administrative remedy form, an informal inmate grievance form, and a § 1983 complaint form regarding the taking of his book and his grievance has not yet been remedied. (ECF No. 1). He also seemingly claims that his television is missing. (Id.). Plaintiff asks to be provided a replacement book or $25.00 in compensation. Because he appears indigent, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be granted. His Complaint shall, however, be summarily dismissed.*fn1

Whether or not Plaintiff's ARPs have been processed or investigated properly or have been wrongfully dismissed, under the law in this circuit, the Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to such procedures voluntarily established by a state.*fn2 See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). Therefore, plaintiff's issue with the manner in which his grievances were handled and with the decision-making process associated with his ARPs simply does not implicate a constitutional claim.*fn3 Further, to the extent that Plaintiff is claiming that his property was destroyed or lost, no constitutional claim has been stated. In the case of lost or stolen property, sufficient due process is afforded an inmate if he has access to an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 542-44 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327 (1986). The right to seek damages and injunctive relief in Maryland courts constitutes an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F. Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md. 1982).*fn4

Because Fawley's prisoner civil rights case fails to state a claim and is premised on an "indisputably meritless legal theory," his case shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).*fn5

He is hereby notified that he may be barred from filing future suits in forma pauperis if he continues to file federal civil rights actions that are subject to dismissal under § 1915(e) or Rule 12(b)(6).*fn6

This constitutes the second § 1915(e) strike to be assessed against Plaintiff.*fn7 A separate order follows.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.