Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.



June 30, 1988

DWAYNE A. NOWLIN, Plaintiff,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: PENN



 This case is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. After careful review of the amended complaint *fn1" and the motion, the Court concludes that plaintiff's claim must be dismissed.

 Plaintiff filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights as a result of his transfer from the Occoquan II Facility in Lorton, Virginia, to the Rappahannock Security Center in Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he served a 120 day sentence for a misdemeanor conviction. *fn2" He alleges that the defendants deprived him of his First Amendment rights when his personal, administrative and religious materials were removed upon transfer. *fn3" Further, he contends that his transfer violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights because the transfer denied him "the inherent privileges of the Virginia System and he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in that the defendants merely shifted him to alleviate "overcrowdedness in their system" to another system which he contends is also congested. Finally, plaintiff asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks punitive and compensatory damages.

 In response it is argued that the defendants, Halem Williams, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, and Marion Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia, are not liable for plaintiffs claims under § 1983. Government officials are not liable for any torts committed by a subordinate under a theory of respondent superior, absent a showing of direct responsibility for the improper action. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1976). Here, plaintiff has made no allegations that either of these defendants personally deprived him of any right, therefore the claims against these defendants should be dismissed.

 In addition to the authority cited by defendants, the law is clear that in order to establish a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege that a policy of the municipality is the cause of his constitutional deprivation. A municipality may only be sued for constitutional deprivations pursuant to a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by the body's officers. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2035-36, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). There has been no allegation in this case that a policy of the District of Columbia caused the harm alleged by plaintiff. See Harris v. District of Columbia, 652 F. Supp. 154, 156-158 (D.D.C. 1986) (plaintiff failed to allege that a policy of the District of Columbia caused or contributed to her alleged mistreatment).

 Additionally defendants' assert that a transfer, in and of itself, does not deprive an inmate of any liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248, 103 S. Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L. Ed. 2d 813 (1983). "Absent some right or justifiable expectation rooted in state law," a duly convicted prison inmate may be transferred from one correctional facility to another without violating the Due Process Clause. Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S. Ct. 2543, 2547, 49 L. Ed. 2d 466 (1976). Under the District of Columbia Code, a person convicted of a crime is sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States. D.C. Code § 24-425 (1981); District of Columbia v. Cooper, 483 A.2d 317 (D.C. 1984). *fn4"

 In Cooper, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that as long as section 24-425 is in the Code, a District of Columbia prisoner can have no legitimate expectation that he will remain at Lorton throughout his term. 483 A.2d at 322. Without such an expectation, a prisoner has no interest protected by the Due Process Clause from summary deprivation. Id. citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225-226, 96 S. Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1976); Montanye, 427 U.S. at 242, 96 S. Ct. at 2547. Clearly, this plaintiff was not entitled to serve his sentence at the Lorton Facility.

 Finally, it is well-settled that District of Columbia prisoners have no due process right to a hearing before being transferred to another prison. Smith v. Saxbe, 183 U.S. App. D.C. 210, 562 F.2d 729, 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Curry-Bey v. Jackson, 422 F. Supp. 926, 932 (D.D.C. 1976); Cooper, 483 A.2d at 322.

 In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the defendant is not entitled to the relief requested as a matter of law and therefore the defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted.

 An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum.

 DATED: June 30, 1988

 ORDER -June 30, 1988, Filed

 Upon consideration of the defendants' motion to dismiss, the complaint and the record in this case, the Court concludes for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum that defendants' motion should be granted. In view of the above, it is hereby

 ORDERED that defendants' motion for dismiss is granted, and it is is further

 ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

 DATED: June 30, 1988

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.