Opinion
No. 551, 2002
Submitted: January 28, 2003
Decided: February 28, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 02C-05-156
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 28th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief, the appellees' motion to affirm, and the appellant's motion to strike the motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Nicholas Mosley, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's dismissal of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed a motion to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. We have considered the State's motion on its merits and have determined that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.
Mosley filed a motion to strike the State's motion to affirm on the grounds that the State's motion exceeded the four-page limit and did not sufficiently state the grounds upon which it was based. Mosley is mistaken. The State's motion, excluding attachments, was four pages long and included appropriate citations to the legal authority upon which the State relied. Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.
(2) The record reflects that Mosley is an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center. He filed his complaint after being suspended from his prison job. He alleged due process violations and negligence by the defendants for failing to follow established inmate grievance procedures.
The Superior Court held that, under established Delaware law, a prisoner does not have a protected liberty interest in a prison work assignment.
Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that Mosley's complaint did not state either a tort or civil rights claim.
(3) After careful consideration of the parties' respective positions, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision dated September 17, 2002. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Mosley's complaint failed to state a claim.
See Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996) (holding that a prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in an institutional status that would permit the prisoner to engage in outside work programs); Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Correction, 1995 WL 214348 (Del.Ch. Mar. 30, 1995) (dismissing complaint alleging due process violation resulting from dismissal from prison job).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.