Johnson v. Rednour et al
Filing
8
ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff does not file an amended compl aint on or before September 22, 2012, or the amended complaint fails to state a viable claim, final judgment dismissing this action will enter. Plaintiff is ADVISED that dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim shall count as one of his allotted strikes under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Action due by 9/22/2012). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/23/2012. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LLEWILLYN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:12-cv-00282-JPG
DAVID A REDNOUR, LT MICHAEL
MIFFLIN, JASON P. VASQUEZ, MICHAEL
CRUMBUCHER, OFFICER MURRAY and
OFFICER PHELPS
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, has brought this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants deprived him
of his constitutional right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution when he was placed in segregation after an investigation and an adjustment
committee hearing concerning a contraband infraction. Plaintiff alleges that the investigation
concerning the contraband infraction was negligent and that he suffered mental anguish from
being placed in segregation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of
the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
articulate a colorable federal cause of action.
When a plaintiff brings an action under § 1983 for procedural due process violations, he
must show that the state deprived him of a constitutionally protected interest in “life, liberty, or
property” without due process of law. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990). Plaintiff
claims his has a Due Process right to remain in the general prison population. However, a
1
prisoner has no protected liberty interest in being in the general population of a prison or at a
particular prison, or in being assigned a particular classification status. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459
U.S. 460, 466–67, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.
9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49
L.Ed.2d 451 (1976).
Plaintiff further claims that he was placed in segregation due to a faulty investigation. In
Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir. 1984), the Seventh Circuit held that the
filing of false disciplinary charges by a correctional officer does not state a Fourteenth
Amendment claim when the accused inmate is given a subsequent hearing on those charges and
the inmate is afforded the procedural protections outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539
(1974) (advance written notice of the charge, right to appear before the hearing panel, the right to
call witnesses if prison security allows, and a written statement of the reasons for the discipline
imposed). Additionally, the decision of the disciplinary board must be supported by “some
evidence.” Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1402 (7th Cir. 1994). The Seventh Circuit reasoned that
prisoners have a right “to be free from arbitrary actions of prison officials,” Hanrahan, 747 F.2d
at 1140, but the procedural protections outlined in Wolff provide the appropriate protection
against arbitrary actions taken by a correctional officer, such as issuing the inmate a fabricated
conduct violation.
Here, Plaintiff has not claimed that any of the Wolff requirements were violated so this
case will be DISMISSED without prejudice.
2
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is GRANTED
leave to file an amended complaint.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint on or before September 22, 2012, or the
amended complaint fails to state a viable claim, final judgment dismissing this action will enter.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim shall count as one
of his allotted “strikes” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s
obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus
the filing fee of $350 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch,
133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (A
dismissal without prejudice may count as a strike, so long as the dismissal is made because the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim.).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 23, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
3
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?