Case Title: Hubbard v. Carroll

Citation: 

Docket Number: 245, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GREGORY HUBBARD,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellant,
v.
THOMAS CARROLL et al.,
Defendants Below-
Appellees.
§
§
§  No. 245, 2003
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 03C-03-271
§
§
Submitted: July 3, 2003
  Decided:   August 27, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 27th day of August 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The plaintiff-appellant, Gregory Hubbard, filed an appeal from the
Superior Court’s April 4, 2003 order dismissing his civil complaint as legally
frivolous.  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has moved to
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on
the face of Hubbard’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree
and AFFIRM.  
1DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 19, § 711(a) (stating that it is an unlawful employment practice for
an employer to “discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s  . . . religion . . . .”).
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 8802.
3DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 8803.  The basis for the dismissal was that “[a]n incarcerated
inmate has no legal right to hold any specific job.”
4According to Hubbard, he had permission to engage in Islamic religious services on
Fridays starting at noon and, therefore, was excused from work all day on Fridays, but was fired
because he played basketball rather than working on Friday morning. 
-2-
(2)
Hubbard is an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center in
Smyrna, Delaware (“DCC”).  The record indicates that Hubbard began
employment as a machinist in the garment shop at DCC in August 2001.  After
being fired on February 8, 2002, Hubbard filed a civil complaint in the Superior
Court alleging that his termination violated due process and constituted an
unlawful employment practice under the Delaware statute.1  The Superior Court
permitted Hubbard to file his complaint in forma pauperis,2 but ruled that the
complaint was legally frivolous and dismissed it.3      
(3)
In this appeal,
Hubbard claims that the Superior Court committed legal error and abused its
discretion by dismissing his complaint as legally frivolous.  He argues that the
Superior Court misconstrued the basis for his complaint, which was that he was
terminated from his employment because he is a Muslim.4 
5Mosley v. Klein, Del. Supr., No. 551, 2002, Walsh, J. (Feb. 28, 2003) (citing Clough
v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996)).
6Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972).
-3-
(4) 
Hubbard’s claims are without merit.  To the extent Hubbard claims
his termination violated due process and he should be reinstated in his job, the
Superior Court was correct that he has no protected liberty interest in a
particular prison work assignment.5  To the extent Hubbard claims that he was
fired from his job because he is a Muslim, he has failed to state either a
constitutional claim or a claim under the Delaware statute because, as is
apparent from Hubbard’s complaint, he was fired for playing basketball rather
than going to work, not because he is a Muslim.  Finally, to the extent Hubbard
claims that the prison authorities have hindered his ability to freely practice his
religion, he has asserted no factual basis for any such claim.6  Thus, in the
absence of any legally cognizable claim, the Superior Court properly dismissed
Hubbard’s complaint.    
(5)
It is manifest on the face of Hubbard’s opening brief that this
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated,
clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The
judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice