Jennings v. Federal Bureau of Prisons ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
TROY JENNINGS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 11-831 (BAH)
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al. )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introduction.
Plaintiff, who is currently imprisoned at United States Penitentiary Coleman II,
commenced this case to challenge his “involuntary transfer . . . to Springfield Missouri Medical
Center.” Compl. at 1–2, ECF No. 1. The Court construes Plaintiff to mean a transfer to the
United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. See MCFP
Springfield, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/spg/index.jsp (last
visited Oct. 19, 2011). Plaintiff claims that his transfer, done “without notice and adversary [sic]
hearing” violated his rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Compl. at
2. This case will be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
II. Legal Standard.
The Court “shall dismiss” an action in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis
“at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action . . . (ii) fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). All that the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require of a complaint is that it contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although
“detailed factual allegations” are not necessary, to provide the “grounds” of “entitle[ment] to
relief” a plaintiff must furnish “more than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56. To sufficiently state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint is plausible on its face “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Finally, a “pro se
complaint is entitled to liberal construction.” Washington v. Geren, 675 F. Supp. 2d 26,
32 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
III. Analysis.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Order, ECF No. 6. Therefore, the Court must
dismiss this case if Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s makes only one brief factual allegation in his complaint: that he was
transferred to a medical facility for federal prisoners without notice or an adversarial hearing.
Compl. at 2. He first claims that transfer violated his First Amendment rights. Id. The First
Amendment protects against infringement of the freedoms of religion, speech, the press,
assembly, and to petition. U.S. Const. amend. I. Plaintiff pleads nothing to implicate those
freedoms, but instead simply states the bare conclusion that his First Amendment rights have
2
been violated. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a First Amendment claim upon which relief can
be granted.
Plaintiff second claims that his transfer violated his Fifth Amendment right to due
process. Compl. at 2.1 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against the
deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the federal government without due process of law.
U.S. Const. amend. V. Although Plaintiff’s allegations of transfer without notice or a hearing,
which he levies against federal defendants, might appear at first glance to implicate those
protections, “an inmate in a state or federal prison does not ordinarily have a constitutionally
protected liberty interest in his assignment to a particular prison.” Beo v. District of Columbia,
44 F.3d 1026, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)).
Plaintiff pleads nothing to support a departure from that ordinary rule. Plaintiff therefore fails to
state a Fifth Amendment claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff third claims that his transfer violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Compl. at 2.
The Sixth Amendment protects, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions,” the right to a speedy trial, to
trial by jury, “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,” to confront witnesses, to
subpoena witnesses, and to the assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI. Plaintiff pleads
nothing to implicate those protections, but instead simply states the bare conclusion that his Sixth
Amendment rights have been violated. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a Sixth Amendment
claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff finally claims that his transfer violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Compl. at 2. The Fourteenth Amendment defines the parameters of United States citizenship;
1
Plaintiff does not mention the Fifth Amendment specifically, but instead alleges that his
transfer violated “due process rights and clause.” Compl. at 2. Because Plaintiff separately and
specifically alleges a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, see id., the Court construes
this portion of Plaintiff’s complaint as attempting to state a claim under the Fifth Amendment.
3
protects against the deprivation of the privileges and immunities of such citizenship; protects
against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property by state governments without due process of
law; protects against the denial of equal protection of the laws; defines the apportionment of
representatives; defines the disqualification from certain public offices of persons who have
committed insurrection or rebellion against, or who have given aid comfort to the enemies of, the
United States; guarantees the validity of the public debt; proclaims illegal and void “any debt or
obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave”; and grants Congress legislative authority to enforce those
provisions. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Plaintiff’s pleadings only touch on one of those
provisions: the protection against deprivation of liberty without due process. That provision
applies only to the states, not the federal defendants against whom Plaintiff attempts to state his
claims. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim upon which relief can
be granted.
IV. Conclusion.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The Court will therefore dismiss this case in a separate order to issue this date.
Date: October 20, 2011 /s/Beryl A. Howell
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge
4