Derek Lee Mills v. Ms. Brittain, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Derek Lee Mills’s pro se prisoner complaint as legally and factually frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court rejected his constitutional claims concerning alleged sexual exhibition by prison staff, confiscation of writings, and disciplinary proceedings, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and closed the case without prejudice to pursuing those claims in state court.

Holdings

1. The complaint was legally and factually frivolous because its allegations that numerous prison employees engaged in prolonged sexual exhibition and that their uniforms threatened prison safety were fanciful and clearly baseless, and the allegations appeared intended to embarrass or abuse the defendants rather than assert a genuine entitlement to legal relief.
2. Alleged sexual harassment without contact or touching does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
3. Mills could not bring a constitutional claim in federal court merely to enforce a prison dress code or other Department of Corrections policy.
4. The complaint did not plausibly state retaliation or due-process claims based on the confiscation of Mills's writings and the resulting disciplinary sanction, and Mills could not relitigate the sanction by labeling it retaliation.
5. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mills's negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial.
6. Amendment of the complaint would be futile, so dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint was frivolous or malicious and therefore subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. Whether alleged sexual harassment without physical contact or touching stated an Eighth Amendment claim.
3. Whether alleged violations of a Department of Corrections dress-code or other prison policy stated a federal constitutional claim.
4. Whether Mills could relitigate a prison disciplinary sanction by characterizing it as retaliation or plausibly state a due-process claim concerning the sanction and confiscation of writings.
5. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.
6. Whether amendment would be futile.

Disposition

dismissed