Opinion
3:21-CV-492 DRL-MGG
02-18-2022
LOUIS P. FROMER, Plaintiff, v. MOLINA, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court
Louis P. Fromer, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider the dismissal of his claims against Lt. Lott and Captain Calloway. ECF 20. In the screening order, the court dismissed the claims based on their placement of Mr. Fromer segregation. See ECF 16. Mr. Fromer does not challenge the ruling that placing him in segregation was not an independent constitutional violation. Rather, he argues that placement was in retaliation for his prior grievances and lawsuits.
The court did not address a retaliation claim in the screening order because the word “retaliation” does not appear in the amended complaint. See ECF 15. Moreover, the amended complaint not only does not allege he was placed in segregation in retaliation for prior grievances and lawsuits, it says (under penalty of perjury) it was done “as a means to try to justify this assault [by Correctional Officer Molina] however I was never written up.” Id. at 5. The court addressed that claim:
He alleges he was held there [in segregation] for fifty-two days without charges to justify the force used by Officer Molina. It is unclear how placement in segregation without charges could justify what would
otherwise be an excessive use of force, but it is clear the Constitution does not create a due process liberty interest in avoiding transfer within a correctional facility.ECF 16 at 2.
Mr. Fromer was allowed to proceed on an excessive use of force claim against Officer Molina. He did not state a claim against Lt. Lott and Captain Calloway - so they were dismissed. He did not allege retaliation in the amended complaint. It would be inconsistent with his previous allegations, made under penalty of perjury, to attempt to add such a claim now.
For these reasons, the motion to reconsider (ECF 20) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.