Wiley v. Chatman et al
ORDER adopting 6 Recommendation and overruling 7 Objections. Wiley's 1 Complaint and 8 proposed amendment fail to state a claim and will be dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal counts as a "strike". An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/1/2017. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
KIMBERELY CHATMAN, Sergeant,
Cummits Unit; CHRIS BUDNIK,
Warden, Cummins Unit; STRAUGHN,
Deputy Warden, ADC; and TERRIE
BANNISTER, Disciplinary Judge, ADC
On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 6,
and overrules Wiley's objections, NQ 7.
R. Crv. P. 72(b)(3). The
filing of a false disciplinary charge is not itself actionable under
§ 1983; and claims for defamation or slander aren't either. Dixon v.
Brown, 38 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1994); Miner v. Brackney, 719 F.2d
954, 955 (8th Cir. 1983). Further, spending thirty days in segregation
and losing contact visits aren't the type of atypical and significant
hardships required to make out a due process claim. Phillips v. Norris,
320 F.3d 844, 846-47 (8th Cir. 2003). Wiley's complaint and proposed
amendment, NQ 1 & 8, therefore fail to state a claim and will be
dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal counts as a "strike" for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma pauperis appeal from this
Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
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?