Opinion
C.A. No. 04C-01-023.
March 2, 2004.
Gregory S. Phillips, Howard Young Correctional Facility.
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Gregory S. Phillips ("plaintiff") has filed a complaint against defendants Dawn Conley and Danielle Whitley ("defendants") and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This is my decision granting the motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff has filed the information required to establish he is indigent. 10 Del. C., ch. 88. Accordingly, I grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The action, however, does not automatically proceed. Instead, the Court reviews the complaint to determine if it is legally or factually frivolous or if it is malicious. 10 Del. C. § 8803(b).
In this case, plaintiff alleges as follows:
1) On November 19, 2003 Dawn Conley commited [sic] a breach of contract, slander and violation of due process against Gregory S. Phillips. When she had him removed from a court ordered prison treatment program one week prior to his completion and subsequent release from incarceration. She falsely accused Phillips of liking one of her counselors, being jealous and obsessive and stalking her. Furthermore, she wrote an inaccurate and slanderous letter concerning Phillips when the Department of Corrections officials tried to comply with Phillips' Superior Court order and return him to the program.
2) On or about November 19, 2003, Danielle Whitley commited [sic] a breach of contract, slander and violation of due process against Gregory S. Phillips. When she had him removed from a court ordered prison treatment program one week prior to his completion and subsequent release from incarceration. She falsely accused Phillips of liking her, being jealous and obsessive and stalking her. Because of her false allegations Phillips was unfairly removed from the program and remains incarcerated unnecessarily.
Plaintiff seeks $1,000 per day for everyday he remains incarcerated past December 2, 2003, and a successful completion of the Key Program.
Documentation submitted in connection with the in forma pauperis motion makes clear that defendant Daneille Whitley was a Key counselor while Dawn Conley was a Key supervisor.
Plaintiff has no claim for a violation of due process rights because he has no constitutionally protected interest in remaining in the Key Program. Abdul-Akbar v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 11408, Allen, C. (March 22, 1991).
Plaintiff has no contract with either of the defendants. Accordingly, there can be no claim for breach of contract.
The final claim I examine is for defamation, both libel and slander. Plaintiff has not clearly and succinctly pled the five elements of defamation. Read v. Carpenter, Del. Super., C.A. No. 95C-03-171, Quillen, J. (June 8, 1995), rearg. den.,Read v. Carpenter, Del. Super., C.A. No. 95C-03-171 (June 23, 1995). In addition, since the defendants are state employees who committed these alleged wrongs in the scope of their employment, the Delaware Tort Claims Act, 10 Del. C. § 4001, applies. Hall v. Schueler, 450 A.2d 892 (Del. 1982). As explained in Lee v. Johnson, Del. Super., C.A. No. 96C-03-291, Quillen, J. (June 4, 1996):
The Tort Claims Act, 10 Del. C. § 4001, exempts the State and its employees from civil liability for negligent acts and omissions if three criteria are satisfied: The act or omission complained of (i) arose out of and in connection with official duties involving the exercise of discretion; (ii) was performed in good faith and in the belief that the public interest would be best served thereby; and (iii) was performed without gross and wanton negligence. Plaintiff has the burden of alleging circumstances that would negate the existence of one or more of these criteria or elements of immunity. Vick v. Haller, Del. Super., 512 A.2d 249, 252, aff'd, Del. Supr., 514 A.2d 782 (1986).
In this case, plaintiff's pleadings are insufficient to state claims for defamation and to negate the existence of one or more of the immunity elements. Thus, his defamation claims against each defendant fail.
Finally, plaintiff's request for injunctive relief by seeking reinstatement to the Key Program is not relief which the Superior Court, a court of law, can grant.
For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
T. Henley Graves