Opinion
1:12CV00032 BSM/JTR
04-17-2012
JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, ADC #78429 PLAINTIFF v. JAMES A. HILL, Sergeant, Grimes Unit, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the United States District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a "Statement of Necessity" that sets forth the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.From this submission, the United States District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other evidence (including copies of any documents) desired to be introduced at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge.
Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, James Edward Williams, is a prisoner at the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"). In this pro se § 1983 action, he alleges that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights. See docket entry#2. Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court recommends that the case be dismissed, without prejudice, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Court is mindful that, when making this determination, the court must "accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, [while] giving no effect to conclusory allegations of law." Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 509 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2007). Importantly, the complaint must "assert facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest," "above the speculative level," that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and mere conclusions or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Stalley, 509 F.3d at 521; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (abrogating the "no set of facts" standard set forth in Conely v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 4546 (1957)). Nevertheless, in Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), the Supreme Court emphasized that a pro se prisoner's § 1983 complaint must be "liberally construed" and "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
II. Discussion
Plaintiff alleges that, on February 17, 2012, Defendants violated his due process rights when they wrongfully convicted him of a disciplinary infraction. See docket entry #2. As punishment for that disciplinary conviction, Plaintiff was reduced in class and ordered to spend sixty days in punitive isolation. Id.
A prisoner may only maintain a due process challenge to a disciplinary proceeding if he is deemed to have a liberty interest at stake. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003). It is well settled that a prisoner does not a liberty interest in maintaining a particular classification level. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Sanders v. Norris, Case No. 05-2398, 2005 WL 2861952 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 2005) (unpublished opinion); Carney v. Houston, 33 F.3d 893, 894 (8th Cir. 1994).
Similarly, in Sandin and its progeny, courts have held that a prisoner does not have a liberty interest arising from being placed in punitive isolation for a relatively short time. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 482-86 (holding that the due process clause applies only when prison officials impose an "atypical and significant hardship on an inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life"); Hemphill v. Delo, Case No. 95-3357, 1997 WL 581079 (8th Cir. Sept. 22, 1997) (unpublished decision) (holding that a prisoner did not have a liberty interest in avoiding thirty days in punitive disciplinary segregation and 290 days in administrative segregation); Driscoll v. Youngman, Case No. 95-4037, 1997 WL 581072 (8th Cir. Sept. 22, 1997) (unpublished decision) (finding that a prisoner did not have a liberty interest in avoiding 135 days in disciplinary and administrative segregation without "meaningful exercise, natural light or adequate time in the library"). Thus, Plaintiff did not have a liberty interest in avoiding placement in punitive isolation for sixty days. Accordingly, he has failed to state a valid due process violation.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This case be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Dismissal constitute a STRIKE, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), than an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
____________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE