SLAYTON v. CASH et al

Filing 26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL (re 24 Second Report and Recommendation) - The report and recommendation is accepted. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "The complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)." The clerk must close the file. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/14/2018. (ckm) Set 1915-2 Flag

Page 1 of 3

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

JAMES DARRYL SLAYTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:18cv84-RH/CAS

OFFICER A. CASH
and NURSE SKELTON,
Defendants.
___________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This prisoner case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, ECF No. 24, and the objections, ECF No. 25. I have reviewed de
novo the issues raised by the objections. The report and recommendation is correct
and is adopted as the court’s opinion, with this additional note.
One of the plaintiff’s claims is that he suffered retaliation—that he was
physically assaulted by a correctional officer—in retaliation for filing grievances.
The plaintiff was charged with and convicted of disciplinary violations resulting
from the same encounter.

Case No. 4:18cv84-RH/CAS

Page 2 of 3

The report and recommendation correctly concludes that the plaintiff cannot
challenge the result of the disciplinary proceeding in this action. This is so because,
under the settled case law cited in the report and recommendation, a prisoner
cannot challenge as retaliatory a disciplinary proceeding in which he was afforded
due process and found guilty. In addition, under the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49 (1997), a
prisoner cannot properly pursue a civil action that, if successful, necessarily would
imply the invalidity of a disciplinary finding that deprived the prisoner of goodtime credit, unless the conviction has been vacated in a separate proceeding.
In many circumstances, a finding that a prisoner was subjected to excessive
force by a correctional officer would not necessarily imply the invalidity of a
disciplinary conviction. A prisoner’s commission of a disciplinary infraction does
not authorize whatever force a correctional officer chooses to use against the
prisoner. But the plaintiff’s allegation here is that he did nothing wrong—that the
officer used force for no reason at all. The sole issue framed by the allegation is
whether the plaintiff did or did not commit a disciplinary violation. The allegation
that the plaintiff did not commit a violation is flatly inconsistent with the
disciplinary finding.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:

Case No. 4:18cv84-RH/CAS

Page 3 of 3

The report and recommendation is accepted. The clerk must enter judgment
stating, “The complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” The clerk
must close the file.
SO ORDERED on July 14, 2018.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge

Case No. 4:18cv84-RH/CAS