Hadley v. Andrews et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting the 4 Recommendation, as modified, and sustaining Hadley's objections in part, 5 . Hadley's allegations about his punitive confinement fail to state a claim, and are therefore dismissed without prejudice. And the Court a grees that a false-disciplinary allegation, standing alone, fails to state a claim in these circumstances. But the Court would appreciate a further recommendation about whether Hadley states a claim that he was disciplined in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, and if he has, whether Heck's favorable-termination requirement applies to that claim. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/28/2015. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CHAUNCEY HADLEY,
ADC #132390
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:15-cv-228-DPM-JTK

JEREMY ANDREWS, Deputy Warden,
Wvarner Unit; M. RICHARDSON,
Lieutenant, Varner Unit; FRANKIE BROOKS,
Sergeant, Varner Unit; and COOPER, Sergeant,
Varner Unit

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On de novo review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 4, as

modified, and sustains Hadley's objections in part, NQ5. FED. R. Crv. P.
72(b)(3). Hadley's allegations about his punitive confinement fail to state a
claim, and are therefore dismissed without prejudice. And the Court agrees
that a false-disciplinary allegation, standing alone, fails to state a claim in
these circumstances.

But the

Court would

appreciate

a

further

recommendation about (1) whether Hadley states a claim that he was
disciplined in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, NQ 2 at
4-5; NQ 5 at 1; and (2) if he has, whether Heck's favorable-termination

requirement applies to that claim. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 754-55
(2004) (per curiam); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995).

So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr f"
United States District Judge

7B

~~ ;zol)--n

-2-