Title: Mosley v. Klein et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 551, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NICHOLAS MOSLEY, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHRISTOPHER KLEIN, 
MICHAEL KNIGHT, and LISE 
MERSON, 
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 551, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 02C-05-156 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 28, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: February 28, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellees’ motion to affirm, and the appellant’s motion to 
strike the motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Nicholas Mosley, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 
granted.  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.  We have considered 
 
2 
the State’s motion on its merits1 and have determined that the judgment of 
the Superior Court should be affirmed. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Mosley is an inmate at the Delaware 
Correctional Center.  He filed his complaint after being suspended from his 
prison job.  He alleged due process violations and negligence by the 
defendants for failing to follow established inmate grievance procedures.  
The Superior Court held that, under established Delaware law, a prisoner 
does not have a protected liberty interest in a prison work assignment.  
Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that Mosley’s complaint did not 
state either a tort or civil rights claim.  
(3) 
After careful consideration of the parties= respective positions, 
we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated 
September 17, 2002.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that 
Mosley’s complaint failed to state a claim.2   
                                                 
1 Mosley filed a motion to strike the State’s motion to affirm on the grounds that 
the State’s motion exceeded the four-page limit and did not sufficiently state the grounds 
upon which it was based.  Mosley is mistaken.  The State’s motion, excluding 
attachments, was four pages long and included appropriate citations to the legal authority 
upon which the State relied.  Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied. 
2 See Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996) (holding that a prisoner does 
not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in an institutional status that would 
permit the prisoner to engage in outside work programs); Abdul-Akbar v. Department of 
Correction, 1995 WL 214348 (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 1995) (dismissing complaint alleging 
due process violation resulting from dismissal from prison job). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__s/Joseph T. Walsh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice