Cantrell v. Hudson et al

Filing 11

ORDER dismissing plaintiff's claims against defts Hobbs, Naylor, Burl, Gibson, and the Doe defts without prejudice. The pltf's claims against defts Hudson, Smart, and Skinner are also dismissed without prejudice, as to the violation of his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 2/9/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JIMMY SHANE CANTRELL, ADC # 98730
V.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 5:11CV00289 JMM/BD

JOHNNIE E. HUDSON, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Jimmy Shane Cantrell, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, filed this
lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his amended complaint, Mr. Cantrell claims
that Defendants Hudson, Smart, and Skinner retaliated against him for exercising his
constitutional rights. Based on these allegations, the Court previously determined that
Mr. Cantrell had stated a first amendment claim against each of these Defendants and
ordered that these Defendants be served.
Mr. Cantrell also claims that Defendants Hudson, Smart, and Skinner violated his
fifth and fourteenth amendment rights, but he fails to provide any factual support for
these claims. Although he alleges that these Defendants failed to collect witness
statements or provide him written notification of the outcome of his disciplinary hearings,
he fails to identify any liberty interest that was implicated. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 487 (1995). Without an underlying liberty interest, Mr. Cantrell’s due process claim
fails. Accordingly, these claims also must be dismissed.
In addition to suing Defendants Hudson, Smart, and Skinner, Mr. Cantrell has sued
Defendants Hobbs, Naylor, Burl, Gibson, and Doe Defendants. However, he has made

no allegations against these Defendants. For this reason, these Defendants must be
dismissed. Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Liability under
section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of
rights. To establish personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [the plaintiff] must
allege specific facts of personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation
of his constitutional rights”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, Mr. Cantrell’s claims against Defendants Hobbs, Naylor, Burl,
Gibson, and the Doe Defendants are DISMISSED, without prejudice, and that these
Defendants are DISMISSED from this lawsuit. Mr. Cantrell’s claims that Defendants
Hudson, Smart, and Skinner violated his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights are also
DISMISSED, without prejudice. Mr. Cantrell has stated a first amendment claim against
Defendants Hudson, Smart, and Skinner and the Court has previously ordered that these
Defendants be served.
DATED this 9 day of February, 2012.

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2