Neal v. Stouffer
| Decision Date | 25 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. PJM-12-524 |
| Parties | CRAIG NEAL, #351405 Plaintiff v. MICHAEL J. STOUFFER, et al. Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Before the Court is Craig Neal's ("Neal") Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983. Defendants, former Commissioner of Correction J. Michael Stouffer, Warden Solomon Hejirika, Sr., Metropolitan Transition Center (MTC), Assistant Warden Kathleen Landerkin, MTC, and former Warden at Western Correctional Institution (WCI), J. Philip Morgan, by their counsel, have filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment with exhibits and declarations.1 (ECF No. 14) to which Neal has filed a reply with exhibits and declarations.2 ECF No. 24. The matter has been fully briefed, and a hearing is deemed unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). After careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and applicable law, the Court will grant Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Neal, who is presently an inmate at WCI, claims that in October of 2011, while he was incarcerated at MTC, Warden Hejirika and Assistant Warden Landerkin threatened to terminate him from his prison job in electrical maintenance, increase his security classification from minimum to medium, and transfer him to a more restrictive facility unless he ceased representing other inmates at disciplinary hearings. (ECF No. 1, Complaint). Neal opted to continue in his prison job assignment.
Neal was subsequently reclassified as a medium security inmate after he was reported involved in an assault on another inmate. As a result, he was transferred from MTC, a minimum security facility to WCI, a medium security facility, and was unable to enter a drug rehabilitation program offered at MTC. Neal alleges his reclassification was based on false information fabricated in retaliation for his representing other inmates at disciplinary hearings. He asserts reclassifications and transfers are typically imposed as sanctions where an inmate has been formally charged and found guilty of a major act of misconduct. See id. at 5 (attachment). Neal complains that he was not formally accused or found guilty of participating in the assault; thus, he has been denied his right to due process. See id. at 6 (attachment).
Neal alleges that November 1, 2011, Warden Hejirika and Assistant Warden Landerkin through their designees Correctional Case Management Specialist II B. Nwosu and Correctional Case Management Manager Chris Smith, in violation of Maryland law and Division of Correction Directives, and in retaliation for exercising his "right" to represent other inmates at disciplinary hearings, entered false information on a security reclassification instrument to cause level. See id. at 4 (attachment).
Neal avers that under Maryland law and Division of Correction (DOC) Directives (DCDs), he has a liberty interest to be free of restraint in accordance with his "true" security level and classification. See id. He claims that shortly after his transfer to WCI, he complained in writing to Warden Bishop about his security classification increase and transfer, and was assigned to the general population after no basis was found for what Neal calls a "fraudulent security threat rationale." See id. at 7 (attachment).
Neal complains there remains an "unfair and invalid stigma" in his base file labeling him as an inmate who placed a hit on another prisoner and directly assaulted another inmate which "slams shut" his "ability to progress through the system." He states that in November 2011, he filed a Request for Administrative Remedy (ARP) that was dismissed and his appeal to the Commissioner was also dismissed. See id. at 7- 8.
As relief, Neal requests expungement of the alleged false information, reclassification of his "accurate security score level," an order enjoining Defendants from retaliating against him and monetary damages. He also seeks lost wages and restoration of diminution of confinement credits.
It is undisputed that Neal was incarcerated at MTC from June 11, 2011 until his transfer to WCI on November 2, 2011. He is currently in the general population at WCI.
In response to Neal's assertion that he was threatened with loss of his prison job for representing other inmates at disciplinary hearings, Assistant Warden Kathy Landerkin attests that she neither threatened Neal with termination from his prison job at MTC, nor threatened to increase his security classification if he continued to represent other inmates at disciplinaryhearings. ECF No. 14, Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 1-2, Declaration of Assistant Warden Kathy Landerkin ( ). Landerkin attests that she advised Neal he could not spend his working hours representing other inmates at disciplinary hearings while assigned to a job in the MTC Maintenance Department. She told him that he needed to choose between a maintenance job and acting as an inmate representative. Neal chose to keep his electrical maintenance job. See id. at ¶¶ 3-5. Landerkin states that while inmates may request representation at disciplinary meetings, Neal does not have a "right" to act as a representative in a disciplinary hearing. See id. at ¶ 6. MTC and Maryland state regulations limit who may act as a representative. See id. At MTC, an inmate may not act as a representative at disciplinary hearings if it conflicts with his job or program assignment. See id. at ¶ 7. Former MTC Warden Hejirika states in his declaration that he "has no knowledge of this incident." ECF No 14, Ex. 5, ¶ 1.
According to the declaration of Lieutenant Willie Georgie ("Georgie), an assault occurred in MTC's G Dorm on October 29, 2011. ECF No. 14, Exhibit No. 3 at ¶ 2, Declaration of Lt. Willie Georgie. Georgie attests intelligence information received from reliable confidential informants indicated the victim of the assault, Kevin Peterson, owed money on a gambling debt and the assailants were led by the "jailhouse lawyer" in G Dorm. See id. Neal was known as the inmate representative or the "jailhouse lawyer" at the time of the incident. See id. Neal was also identified as one of the inmates who stabbed Peterson. See id. After confirming the intelligence,Georgie submitted this information to Warden Hejirika with a recommendation to transfer Neal to MTC.3 See id. Neal was also added to Peterson's enemy list. See id. Neal attests this information was fabricated. ECF No. 24, Ex. p-1 (declaration of Craig Neal).
On November 1, 2011, a Security Reclassification Instrument recommended increasing Neal's security classification from minimum to medium security based on his direct involvement in the assault. ECF No. 14, Ex. 6. In the recommendation, case manager Chris Smith, described Neal as "a clear threat to institutional security" and concluded, "[a]s such, med[ium] Sec[urity] is warranted." See id. at 2. Neal was transferred to WCI the following day, November 2, 2011, and placed on administrative segregation because he was a new transfer pending review of appropriate housing. ECF No. 14, Ex. 7 and 8.
On December 2, 2011, Neal was approved for general population status at WCI. ECF No. 14, Ex. No. 9. On March 14, 2012, Neal was placed on the vocational shop waiting list and recommended to continue academic student assignments. ECF No. 14, Ex. No. 10. Neal does not aver he is prevented from representing other inmates at hearings at WCI.
James Bennett, Correctional Case Management Specialist II attests there is no record that WCI Warden Frank Bishop discussed or corresponded with Neal in regard to the matters alleged in this case. ECF No. 14, Ex. 11 at ¶ 3, Declaration of James Bennett. Additionally, Bennett states there is also no current Intelligence/Investigative (INTEL) file on Neal at WCI referencing this Complaint. See id. at ¶ 4.4
Neal did not file any Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") requests concerning the allegations in the instant Complaint. ECF No. 14, Ex, 12, Declaration of Sergeant Jeffrey C. Shimko. On November 28, 2011, Neal filed a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office (IGO), complaining about his transfer from WCI on November 1, 2011, increase in his security classification from minimum to medium security, and loss of his job at MTC. ECF No. 14, Ex. 13 at ¶3, Declaration of Scott S. Oakley, Executive Director. The grievance was dismissed on January 19, 2012, for failure to state a claim upon which administrative relief can and should be granted. See id. There is no record that Neal sought additional review of that determination.
Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is properly granted only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The moving party must demonstrate through the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any," that a reasonable jury would be unable to reach a verdict for the non-moving party. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). When this burden is satisfied, the non-moving party then bears the burden of demonstrating that there are disputes of material fact and that the matter should proceed to trial. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Company v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
A material fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue over a material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a...
To continue reading
Request your trial