Williams v. Piggs

Full title: ROY LEE WILLIAMS v. SGT. PIGGS, ET AL

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

Date published: Jan 26, 2009

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-457-P (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-457-P.

January 26, 2009

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARK HORNSBY, Magistrate Judge

In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Before the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Roy Lee Williams ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this Court on March 19, 2006. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, but complains his civil rights were violated by prison officials while detained at the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He names Sgt. Piggs, Commander Robert Wyche, Sgt. M. Gay and Sgt. Burks as defendants.

Plaintiff claims that upon his arrival at the Caddo Correctional Center in February 2006, all of his property was confiscated. He claims his property included clothing, hygiene products, legal mail, legal books, and legal materials. He claims he informed Sgt. Piggs that he needed his legal materials because he was charged with first degree murder and aggravated kidnapping. He claims Sgt. Piggs informed him that he did not need his legal materials because he could use the law library.

Plaintiff claims he filed requests in the kite system for his legal materials. He claims these requests were denied. Plaintiff claims he then filed a grievance in the administrative remedy procedure requesting his legal materials. He claims Sgt. Piggs answered his grievance and returned to him the legal materials she felt he needed. Plaintiff complains that Sgt. Piggs forged his name on the claim receipt after he refused to sign it. He claims his grievance then went to Commander Wyche who informed him that he had the legal materials he needed, including his discovery information. Plaintiff complains that Defendants have read his legal work and only given him parts of it.

Plaintiff claims he could not properly research and/or study his criminal charges without all of his legal materials. He claims he was prevented from filing timely motions in the state court. He admits that he had an appointed attorney to represent him in these two cases.

Plaintiff claims that Sgt. Piggs rejected several grievances he filed in the administrative remedy procedure even though they were legitimate and precise.

Plaintiff complains that on July 3, 2006, he was placed in segregation when he asked to be placed in protective custody. He claims he was denied due process of law because he did not receive a hearing.

Plaintiff claims that Sgt. M. Gay, Sgt, Burks and the property room officials released some of his property to the wrong persons. He claims his remaining property was then lost.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to have all of his legal materials returned to him, compensation, termination and criminal charges brought against Defendants, and a transfer to Red River Parish.

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Legal Property Claim

Plaintiff claims that upon his arrival at the Caddo Correctional Center in February 2006, all of his legal property was confiscated. He admits that after he filed a grievance in the administrative remedy procedure, some of his legal property was returned to him. He claims that without all of his legal property, he was unable to file pretrial motions regarding his first degree murder and aggravated kidnapping charges.

Prisoners have a constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts. Degrate v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 768-69 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977)). However, this constitutional guarantee is not without limitation. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-62, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)). In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, (1996), the Supreme Court reviewed its holding in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, (1977) which is the source of a prisoner's constitutional right to "meaningful access to the courts." While the Supreme Court reaffirmed a prisoner's right of access to the courts in Lewis, the Court limited the parameters of Bounds and set forth a standard to be applied when determining whether to grant relief for an access to the courts violation. In so holding, the Court noted that a prisoner must show an actual injury, explaining that this requirement is derived from the doctrine of standing. Lewis, 116 S.Ct. at 2179. The Court used the analogy of a prisoner who is denied access to that of a healthy prisoner who has been deprived of medical treatment. In both cases, neither the access deprived prisoner nor the healthy prisoner have sustained constitutional injury, and thus, are not entitled to relief under Section 1983. The Court emphasized that the court's role is to provide relief to claimants who have suffered actual harm, not to interfere with the management of prisons.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit has held that a prisoner cannot prevail on an access to the courts claim without proving an actual injury in non-frivolous litigation as a result of the defendant's alleged unconstitutional conduct. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998); Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999).

Application of the actual injury requirement to the instant case supports a finding that Plaintiff's claims are frivolous. Clearly, Plaintiff has not satisfied the "actual injury" requirement. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he lost the right to commence, prosecute or appeal any suit as a result of the alleged denial of his legal property. He admits that he was represented by an attorney as to both charges. Plaintiff admits that the facility had a law library. Furthermore, Plaintiff's complaint in this Court reveals on its face that he was able to clearly present his claims to this Court. Thus, he has failed to state any actual injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

Property Claim

Plaintiff filed this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act which provides redress for persons "deprived of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" by a person acting under color of state law. Accordingly, the initial inquiry and threshold concern of the reviewing court is whether Plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 107 S. Ct. 1908 (1981).

Plaintiff claims his property, which included clothing, hygiene products, legal mail, legal books, legal materials, pictures and jewelry, was released to the wrong persons and/or lost by prison officials. The property of which Plaintiff was allegedly deprived can constitute "property" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and its loss is worthy of redress if the loss implicates constitutional rights. See id. at 542, 107 S. Ct. at 1916. However, the Fourteenth Amendment is not a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States. See Baker v. McCollan, 433 U.S. 137, 99 S. Ct. 2689 (1979). A constitutional deprivation of property without due process of law, as differentiated from a state tort law claim, must be intentional and plaintiff must allege specific facts which support such a conclusion.

Absent an intentional deprivation of property where the charge only supports a negligent failure by defendants, a constitutional deprivation does not lie. "[T]he Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty or property." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328, 106 S. Ct. 662, 663 (1986). Moreover, even in instances where intentional deprivation occurs where an adequate state post-deprivation remedy is available, the Due Process Clause is not implicated. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3204 (1984), on remand, 744 F.2d 22 (4th Cir. 1984); Marshall v. Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 764 (5th Cir. 1984). Mere assertions of intentionality are not enough in the absence of specific facts supporting the assertions and "even if the taking were intentional, the state could afford the [plaintiff] due process by providing a post-deprivation remedy for the redress of the unforeseeable, unauthorized injury . . . alleged." Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 649, 652 (5th Cir. 1988). Louisiana law provides Plaintiff the opportunity to seek redress for his loss, whether intentional or negligent. See La. Civ. Code art. 2315. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

Administrative Remedy Claims

Plaintiff claims he filed several grievances in the administrative remedy procedure which were rejected even though they were legitimate and precise. Inmates do not have a constitutionally protected right to a prison administrative grievance procedure. See Oladipupo v. Austin, et al., 104 F.Supp.2d 626 (United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana 4/24/00); Brown v. Dodson, et al., 863 F. Supp. 284 (United States District Court, Western District of Virginia 6/2/94); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8^th Cir. 1991). A prison official's failure to comply with a state administrative grievance procedure is not actionable under Section 1983 because a state administrative grievance procedure does not confer any substantive constitutional right upon prison inmates. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9^th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898, 109 S.Ct. 242, 102 L.Ed.2d 231. Furthermore, state administrative grievance procedures are separate and distinct from state and federal legal procedures. Thus, a prison official's failure to comply with state administrative grievance procedures does not compromise an inmate's right of access to the courts. Flick, supra. Thus, insofar as Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to comply with the prison administrative grievance procedure, those allegations, standing alone, do not provide an arguable basis for recovery under Section 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

Classification and Due Process Claims

Plaintiff claims that he was placed in segregation when he asked to be placed in protective custody. He further claims that he denied due process because he remained in segregation without a hearing.

This Court cannot resolve a classification claim. Federal courts should not, under the guise of enforcing constitutional standards, assume the superintendence of state prison administration. See Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1368 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (overruled on other grounds). Thus, this Court accords state prison administrators wide-ranging deference to adopt and to execute policies and practices that are needed to maintain and preserve order, discipline and security in prison. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979).

The classification of prisoners is such a practice that is left to the discretion of prison officials. See McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248, 1250 (5th Cir. 1990). "It is well settled that '[p]rison officials must have broad discretion, free from judicial intervention, in classifying prisoners in terms of their custodial status'." McCord, 910 F.2d at 1250 (quoting Wilkerson v. Maggio, 703 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1983)).

In Louisiana, the classification of prisoners is the duty of the Department of Corrections and an inmate, such as Plaintiff, has no right to a particular classification. In addition, "speculative, collateral consequences of prison administrative decisions do not create constitutionally protected liberty interests." Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 299 n. 8, 96 S. Ct. 2532, 2540 n. 8 (1976)). Thus, the prison officials' decision to place Plaintiff in segregation rather than protective custody does not give rise to constitutionally protected liberty interests.

To the extent Plaintiff contends he was punished without due process, that claim is not cognizable. In Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), the Supreme Court clarified when due process protections attach to the prison disciplinary process. The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not afford an inmate a protected liberty interest that would entitle the inmate to procedural protections in the disciplinary process when the maximum sanction the inmate could receive does not "present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest" and the duration of the prisoner's original sentence is not affected. Id. 132 L.Ed.2d at 431. Under the guidance provided by Sandin, the Fifth Circuit has held that as a general rule, only sanctions which result in loss of good time credit or which otherwise directly and adversely affect release will implicate a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, in commenting onSandin, the Fifth Circuit noted that liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause are generally limited to actions which affect the quantity of time rather than the quality of time served by a prisoner. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1997) citing Sandin, 115 S.Ct. at 2297.

Plaintiff in the instant case does not allege that the disciplinary action affected the duration of his sentence or that the disciplinary sentence was atypical of the prison environment. To the contrary, Plaintiff's allegations concern his placement in segregation which is far from "extraordinary." This Court finds that under Sandin, Orellana and Madison, placement in segregation does not constitute the type of atypical punishment that presents a significant deprivation which would implicate due process concerns. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this Court finds Plaintiff's complaint to be frivolous, it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before or after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995);Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989).

Accordingly;

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

OBJECTIONS

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objection within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations set forth above, within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana.