White v. Hobbs et al

Filing 8

ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. Dismissal constitutes a strike. An in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/15/2012. (mcz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LEWIS J. WHITE,
ADC #129569

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:12-cv-362-DPM-JTR

RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1.

White has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that defendants

violated his constitutional rights in several ways when they found him guilty
of disciplinary infractions for typing another prisoner's legal brief. Document
No.7. The Court must screen White's allegations. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

2.

White has not stated a viable due process claim. He contends that

defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. A
prisoner has a right to due process during prison disciplinary proceedings
only if he has a liberty interest at stake. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995); Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844,847 (8th Cir. 2003). As punishment for
his disciplinary infractions, White was reduced in class, and he lost

commissary, visitation, and phone privileges for thirty days. White did not
have a liberty interest in maintaining his class or privileges. Moody v. Daggett,
429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976); Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 642-43 & n.2
(8th Cir. 1996); Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.3d 1203, 1207 (8th Cir. 1990).
3.

White's allegations that defendants violated several internal

prison rules during his disciplinary proceedings do not constitute a
constitutional violation. Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to
enforce compliance with internal prison rules. Phillips, 320 F.3d at 847;
Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997).

4.

White has not stated a viable double jeopardy claim. White

alleges that defendants violated the Fifth Amendment prohibition against
double jeopardy when the found him guilty of several different disciplinary
infractions in connection with his decision to assist another inmate with his
legal work.

But the double jeopardy clause does not apply to prison

disciplinary proceedings. Kerns v. Parratt, 672 F.2d 690, 691 (8th Cir. 1982).
5.

Finally, White makes the vague allegation that his unspecified

First and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was punished for
helping another prisoner with his legal work. Prisoners do not have a

-2-

constitutional right to provide legal assistance to fellow prisoners. Shaw v.
Murphy, 532 U.S. 223,230-31 (2001); Bear v. Kautzky, 305 F.3d 802,805-06 (8th

Cir. 2002); Gassier v. Rayl, 862 F.2d 706, 708 (8th Cir. 1998). Further, White
does not have standing to bring an access to the court claim on behalf of the
prisoner who may have been harmed by not having White's assistance with
his legal work. Johnson v. State ofMissouri, 142 F.3d 1087,1088 (8th Cir. 1998)
Thus, White has not stated a viable First or Sixth Amendment claim.
6.

The case is therefore dismissed without prejudice for failing to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dismissal
constitutes a strike. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma pauperis appeal would
not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-