Day v. McDannald et al.

Summary

The court screened a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning delayed consideration for transfer to a re-entry center and alleged denial of sex-offender treatment. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, denied the motion for recruited counsel, and granted leave to amend within thirty days.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim against a defendant merely by naming that defendant in the caption; the complaint must allege facts permitting an inference that the defendant was personally involved in the constitutional deprivation.
2. An inmate has no protected liberty interest in being housed at a particular correctional facility within a state's prison system, even if the destination facility is less desirable or the inmate prefers it.
3. The allegation that Counselor Cearlock took approximately four months to process the plaintiff's application did not state a constitutional claim.
4. A bare allegation that the plaintiff was denied sex-offender treatment failed to state a claim because it did not identify the responsible individuals, specify the acts or omissions, describe the alleged violation, or provide a date or other facts satisfying Rule 8(a).
5. The motion for counsel was properly denied because the plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2. Whether the alleged delay in processing an application and failure to transfer the plaintiff to a preferred correctional facility implicated a protected liberty interest.
3. Whether the sex-offender-treatment allegation satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and stated a constitutional violation.
4. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to court-recruited counsel.

Disposition

dismissed