Holt v. Hobbs et al

Filing 93

ORDER adopting proposed findings and recommended disposition; dismissing Holt's complaint with prejudice; dimissal of this action constitutes a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); denying 89 Holt's motion for an emergency hearing; and denying all remaining motion as moot. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/23/12. (hph)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION GREGORY HOLT (Abdul Maalik Muhammad) ADC #129616 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:11CV00164 BSM RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe [Doc. No. 82] and the filed objections [Doc. No. 86] have been reviewed. After carefully considering this document and making a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the proposed findings and recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. Holt’s motion for an emergency hearing [Doc. No. 89] is denied. In his motion, Holt states that he has been placed in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing the present suit challenging the Arkansas Department of Correction’s (ADC) grooming policy. Doc. No. 89 at ¶ 1. Holt admits that he was initially placed in administrative segregation upon his own request. [Doc. No. 87] at ¶ 2. Holt also admits that upon his request to be released from administrative segregation, his request was denied based on actions he had taken in violation of ADC policy, including sending a threatening letter to a local police department. Id. at ¶ 3. See Doc. 84-1. “It is well established that prisoners have narrowly defined liberty interests, for imprisonment necessarily retracts many of the liberties of the free. Among the liberties which prisoners do not enjoy is choice of cells. Transfer within the prison, or to another prison, is within the discretion of prison officials.” Lyon v. Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir. 1984). Therefore, Holt’s motion for an emergency hearing [Doc. No. 89] is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Holt’s complaint [Doc. No. 2] be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 2. Dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3. Holt’s motion for an emergency hearing [Doc. No. 89] is denied. 4. All remaining pending motions are denied as moot. An appropriate judgment shall accompany this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March 2012. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?