Williams v. Minor

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 4 the recommended disposition with modification and dismissing 2 Williams's complaint, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim, which constitutes a "strike" under under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). No certification will be made as to the good faith nature of an in forma pauperis appeal. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/26/2016. (kdr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHRISTOPHER W. WILLIAMS ADC #153430 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00094 BSM JUSTINE MINOR, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Delta Regional Unit DEFENDANT ORDER The recommended disposition (“RD”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe [Doc. No. 4] and plaintiff Christopher Williams’s objections [Doc. Nos. 7, 8] have been reviewed. After a de novo review, the RD is adopted with modification. The RD dismisses the complaint because the allegations did not implicate a protected liberty interest. As Williams notes, the RD does not mention his loss of good time credit, which could be such an interest. Doc. No. 8 at 2–3; see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556–59 (1974); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477–78 (1995). This is a not a blanket rule, however, as state law, not the federal Constitution, determines whether a state created the protected interest. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484; Dobrovolny v. Moore, 126 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 1997) (a state retains the right to interpret availability of state-conferred interest). Although some states have created this protected interest, Arkansas has not. Williams points to Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201 as the statutory right to good time credit. Doc. No. 8 at 3. That provision does not create an entitlement to good time, however, because it is permissive and not absolute. See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201(a) (an inmate “may be entitled” to good time) (emphasis added)). Furthermore, good time in Arkansas does not reduce the length of a sentence, id. § 12-29-201(d), but only the location and conditions of confinement, id. § 12-29-201(e)(1). See id. § 16-93-1302(d) (good time “shall not be considered as a reduction in sentence”). The Arkansas Supreme Court has concluded that this language does not create a protected liberty interest, which the federal district court has adopted. See, e.g., Curtis v. Kelley, Case No. 4:15-CV-00098 DPM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 13, 2016), Doc. No. 35 (“Arkansas hasn’t created a liberty interest in good time credits.”); Cooper v. Norris, No. 5:09-CV-00278 SWW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109852 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 27, 2009); McKinnon v. Norris, 231 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Ark. 2006) (“Arkansas has not created a liberty interest in good time under [Wolff].”). Accordingly, Williams’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for the failure to state a claim, which constitutes as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). No certification will be made as to the good faith nature of an in forma pauperis appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of May 2016. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?