United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. BREDAR CHIEF JUDGE.
Steven Gabriel, an inmate confined to Baltimore Central
Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC), filed the above-captioned
civil rights complaint along with a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis on September 3, 2019. For purposes of this
initial review, the motion shall be granted.
complaint is deficient in several respects. Mr. Gabriel
provides only the names of Secretary of the Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services Stephen Moyer,
Governor Hogan, and Lt. Governor Rutherford, but does not
include any specific allegations against these defendants.
Additionally, there are no specific allegations against the
John Doe defendants; rather, Mr. Gabriel simply provides a
generalized grievance regarding the manner in which
administrative remedy complaints are processed; the failure
to provide phone access to inmates who are newly committed to
BCBIC; the length of time it takes to obtain requested case
law from LASI; the inadequacies of the library provided at
BCBIC; and complains that his diminution of confinement
credits have not been properly calculated. ECF 1 at pp. 3-5.
With the exception of the last claim listed, Mr. Gabriel
fails to allege that he has personally suffered a cognizable
injury as a result of the challenged policies, practices, and
conditions as noted.
state a civil rights claim, a prisoner must allege that he,
himself, sustained a deprivation of right, privilege, or
immunity secured by Constitution or federal law. See
Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 563 (4th Cir. 1977). To
demonstrate standing, "Plaintiff must allege personal
injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly
unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested
relief." See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751
(1984) abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark Int'l,
Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118
(2014). Mr. Gabriel has no standing to assert the rights of
another inmate who may have suffered harm as the result of
the challenged policies or practices; therefore, his
generalized claims regarding the processing of administrative
remedies, the failure to provide phone access to inmates
newly committed to BCBIC, the length of time it takes to
obtain requested case law from LASI, and the inadequacies of
the library provided at BCBIC are dismissed without
Gabriel's claim regarding an alleged error in the
calculation of his diminution of confinement credits for
which he seeks "immediate release" is not a claim
for which federal habeas relief is available. See McCray
v. Rosenblatt, 1994 WL 320212 (4th Cir. July 6, 1994)
(per curiam) (unpublished); see also Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Pringle v.
Beto, 424 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1970). Violation of a
state law that does not infringe upon a specific
constitutional right is cognizable in federal habeas corpus
proceedings only if it amounts to a "fundamental defect
which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of
justice." Hailey v. Dorsey, 580 F.2d 112, 115
(4th Cir. 1978) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368
U.S. 424, 428 (1962)). A dispute over diminution credits does
not rise to this level. See Willeford v. Estelle,
538 F.2d 1194, 1197 (5th Cir. 1976). If a "claim ...
rests solely upon an interpretation of [state] case law and
statutes, it is simply not cognizable on federal habeas
review." Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 157
(4th Cir. 1998). This claim shall also be dismissed without
prejudice; Mr. Gabriel may seek relief in Maryland State
Court by filing a habeas corpus petition. See Md.
Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-701 et
separate order dismissing the complaint without prejudice
follows. Dated this fj day of September, 2019.
 Importantly Mr. Gabriel does not state
that he has suffered an actual injury as a result of the
alleged deficiencies in the library services. A failure to
allege an actual injury is fatal to a claim that a prisoner
has been denied access to the courts. See Lewis v.
Casey,518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996)(actual injury
requirement derives from the doctrine of standing). An actual
injury for purposes of an access-to-courts claim requires
demonstration that a non-frivolous, arguable claim was lost.
Id. at 399. Here, Mr. Gabriel states only ...