UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7540

WILLIE D. WORLEY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ALVIN KELLER, Secretary of Prisons; ROBERT LEWIS, Director 

of Prisons; HATTIE B. PIMPONG, Chief Disciplinary Hearing 

Officer; REGINALD E. MIGETTE, SR., Chairman of Inmate 

Grievance Board,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:11-ct-03012-BO)

Submitted: March 22, 2012 Decided: April 11, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie D. Worley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie D. Worley, Jr. appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his complaint and its denial of his motion to alter 

judgment. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the district 

court’s dismissal of Worley’s complaint and remand for further 

proceedings.

Worley, a North Carolina prisoner, brought a pro se 

civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) against certain 

officials of the North Carolina Department of Corrections. 

Worley’s complaint alleged that prison staff habitually falsely 

charged him and other prisoners with misconduct and that the 

hearings afforded by the prison were not fair and impartial. As 

an aspect of the injury alleged, Worley cited the $10.00 

administrative fee assessed against prisoners found guilty of 

misconduct.

The district court reviewed Worley’s complaint and 

dismissed it as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006). 

In its order, the court cast Worley’s complaint as a claim that 

the $10.00 administrative fee is unconstitutional. Worley filed 

a motion to alter judgment stating that the district court had 

misunderstood the basis for his complaint. The motion, in fact, 

expressly stated that “Plaintiff do[es] not dispute the 

constitutionality of the Department of Correction[]s assessing a 
3

$10.00 administrative fee.” The district court denied the 

motion.

A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be liberally 

construed. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 

1978). Once construed liberally, however, a federal court must 

dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time the court 

determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although not a 

comprehensive definition, a suit is frivolous if it lacks an 

arguable basis in law or fact. Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 

252, 256-57 (4th Cir. 2004). We review such dismissals for an 

abuse of discretion. Id. at 254.

We find that the district court abused its discretion 

in dismissing Worley’s suit as frivolous. To be sure, we 

understand fully the inherent awkwardness faced by the district 

court in examining a complaint alleging, in essence, the 

existence of a pattern and practice of false allegations of 

institutional violations. Nevertheless, by misstating Worley’s 

claim — and failing to rectify the error in response to Worley’s 

motion to alter judgment — the district court’s frivolous 

determination is untenable. We therefore vacate the district 

court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings. In doing 
4

so, we express no view as to whether Worley’s complaint can be 

sustained. We simply recognize that the claim the district 

court professed to dismiss is not the claim contained in 

Worley’s complaint. Worley’s motion for appointment of counsel 

is denied as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED