MCDANIELS v. LIVINGSTON, et al

Filing 6

ORDER GRANTING 4 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS A PAUPER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by VINCENT MCDANIELS: Plaintiff to pay $44.83 w/n 30 days an initial partial prepayment filing fee and a ssessed total $350.00 filing fee. It is recommended that this case be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted AND Plaintiff's 5 request for service be DENIED AS MOOT. R&R flag set. (Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 12/28/2011.). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 11/30/2011. (jws) (Mailed copy of order via certified, return receipt to penal institution.)

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VINCENT MCDANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-171-MP-GRJ

DEBRA LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Defendants
____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED AS A PAUPER
AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case is before the Court on Doc. 1, Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C § 1983 (“complaint”); Doc. 4, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed as a
pauper; and Doc. 5, Plaintiff’s request for service. This case is also before the Court for
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915, which provides that the Court may dismiss a
case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the
action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C §
1915(e)(2). For the reasons discussed below, it is RECOMMENDED that the case be
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 4) is GRANTED to the extent that
the case may proceed without the prepayment of the entire filing fee. Plaintiff shall pay
$44.83 as an initial partial filing fee as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A); however,

Page 2 of 5

Plaintiff is assessed the total $350.00 filing fee. The agency having custody of Plaintiff
shall forward, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order, the initial partial
filing fee of $44.83 to the Clerk of Court. A check from a penal institution, a cashier's
check, or a money order should be made payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." The
following information shall either be included on the face of the payment or attached
thereto: (1) the full name of the prisoner; (2) the prisoner's inmate number and, (3)
Northern District Florida Case Number 4:11-cv-171-MP-GRJ. Checks or money orders
which do not have this information will be returned.
Plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
month's income (that is, all funds deposited into the account) credited to the account.
Upon receipt of this Order, the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall forward
payments from Plaintiff's account on a monthly basis to the Clerk of Court each time the
amount in the account exceeds $10.00. These payments shall continue until the filing
fee of $350.00 is paid in full. Accordingly, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to:
Inmate Accounts, Mayo Correctional Institution, 8784 West U.S. Highway 27, Mayo, FL
32066.
Plaintiff is warned that he is ultimately responsible for payment of the filing fee if
the agency with custody over him/her lapses in its duty to make payments on his/her
behalf. For this reason, if Plaintiff is transferred to another jail or institution, Plaintiff
should ensure that the new institution is informed about this lawsuit and the required
monthly payments as set out herein. Plaintiff is advised to retain a copy of this Order
for this purpose.

Case No: 1:11-cv-171-MP-GRJ

Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff’s claims stem from an unspecified prison disciplinary conviction for which
he was punished with the loss of visitation privileges for two years. Plaintiff does not
assert that he was denied due process in connection with the underlying disciplinary
proceeding. Rather, Plaintiff contends that he was entitled to additional procedural
safeguards before the sanction chosen by prison officials – loss of visitation – was
imposed. Plaintiff contends that he has a due-process liberty interest in child visitation,
and that the sanction was chosen out of reprisal for Plaintiff’s exercise of his rights by
filing grievances against prison officials. Doc. 1.
Due Process In the Prison Disciplinary Setting
When a constitutionally protected liberty interest is implicated by a prison
disciplinary proceeding, the inmate is entitled to: (1) written notice of the charges
brought against him at least twenty-four hours before the hearing; (2) an opportunity,
when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement of the
factfinder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action
taken. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 564-66 (1974). The factfinder’s decision need
only be supported by “some evidence.” Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst. v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
Plaintiff does not challenge the procedures used to find him guilty of a prison
disciplinary charge, and he points to no authority for the proposition that he was entitled
to a second hearing before a sanction was imposed. The Court’s review of Wolff and
its progeny reveals no authority for the type of bifurcated disciplinary hearing advanced
Case No: 1:11-cv-171-MP-GRJ

Page 4 of 5

by Plaintiff.
Moreover, the sanction imposed in this case does not give rise to a
constitutionally-protected liberty interest. In Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995), the Supreme Court recognized only two instances in which a prisoner may claim
a constitutionally protected liberty interest which implicates constitutional due process
concerns: (1) when actions of prison officials have the effect of altering the inmate's
term of imprisonment, and (2) where a prison restraint “imposes atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
In Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 131 (2003), the Supreme Court upheld
prison regulations that placed significant restrictions on prisoners’ visitation rights. The
Court explained that:
The very object of imprisonment is confinement. Many of the
liberties and privileges enjoyed by other citizens must be surrendered by
the prisoner. An inmate does not retain rights inconsistent with proper
incarceration. See Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc.,
433 U.S. 119, 125, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977); Shaw v.
Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229, 121 S.Ct. 1475, 149 L.Ed.2d 420 (2001).
And, as our cases have established, freedom of association is among the
rights least compatible with incarceration. See Jones, supra, at 125-126,
97 S.Ct. 2532; Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d
675 (1983). Some curtailment of that freedom must be expected in the
prison context.
Overton, 539 U.S. at 131. The Court specifically concluded that a two-year bar on
visitation for certain offenders did not run afoul of Sandin because it did not represent
“a dramatic departure from accepted standards for conditions of confinement,” nor did
the bar “create inhumane prison conditions, deprive inmates of basic necessities, or fail
to protect their health or safety.” Id. at 137. While Plaintiff contends that other inmates
who were convicted of similar offenses did not have visitation privileges suspended for
Case No: 1:11-cv-171-MP-GRJ

Page 5 of 5

two years, he has alleged no facts suggesting that the application of the sanction to
him, under the particular circumstances of his disciplinary proceeding, was arbitrary
such that different considerations might apply. See id.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted because Plaintiff was not entitled to a bifurcated
disciplinary hearing prior to imposition of a sanction, and in any event the facts alleged
by Plaintiff do not support a conclusion that the sanction imposed triggered any
additional constitutional due process protections.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is:
1. ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed as a pauper, Doc. 4, is
GRANTED.
2. Respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
3. Respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for service, Doc. 5, be
DENIED AS MOOT.
IN CHAMBERS this 30th day of November 2011.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and
recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14
days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections
limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 1:11-cv-171-MP-GRJ