Hilton v. Reeves et al

Filing 6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall count as one of his allotted "strikes" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 8/23/2012. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TONY HILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN REEVES, and
JODY HATHAWAY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 12-728-GPM

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center, has brought this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff alleges that, while he was

incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center in 2008, he was labeled as a sexual predator. Plaintiff
believes that an IDOC Administrative Directive provides that an inmate can be labeled as a sexual
predator only after he has been found guilty of an offense charged in a disciplinary report. As a
result of being labeled as a predator, he alleges, he has been denied a transfer to a lower security
prison, and has been denied access to programs such as drug rehabilitation and vocational training.
He alleges that John Reeves, a psychiatric health care provider, and Warden Jody Hathaway labeled
hm as a predator and/or have the authority to remove the label. He also alleges that he has not
received responses to all of his grievances, the Administrative Review Board was wrong to deny
a grievance as untimely, and Warden Hathaway has not responded to his many letters.

1

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 not articulated
a colorable federal claim against either Defendant.
No constitutional right is implicated by the labeling of Plaintiff as sexual predator. For the
due process clause to be applicable, there must be a protected liberty interest that is being infringed
upon. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S 215, 223-24 (1976). Not every action that carries with it
negative consequences creates a liberty interest. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 86-88 (1976).
“[P]risoners possess neither liberty nor property in their classifications and prison assignments.
States may move their charges to any prison in the system.” DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211,
212 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976)). See also Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976) (the Constitution does not guarantee placement in a particular
prison).1 Further, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to participate in a drug rehab program,
vocational training, or a work program. DeTomaso, 970 F.2d at 212-213. Therefore, the fact that
Plaintiff’s status as a predator may make him ineligible for such programs is of no constitutional
significance.
Plaintiff’s claim that prison officials did not follow an Administrative Directive in labeling
him as a predator does not state a federal claim that can be pursued in a case brought under Section

1

The caveat to this rule – involving transfer or assignment to a prison where the conditions
impose “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of
prison life” – does not apply here, where the transfer decision does not involve Tamms
Correctional Center, the closed maximum security prison (i.e., supermax prison) in Illinois. See
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012), citing Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005).
2

1983. Failure to follow state rules or statutes does not violate Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights.
Thompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454-455 (7th Cir. 2006).
Lastly, plaintiff’s allegations concerning the grievance process, the lack of response to his
grievances and letters, and the Administrative Review Board’s erroneous denial of a grievance do
not state a claim. A “state’s inmate grievance procedures do not give rise to a liberty interest
protected by the due process clause.” Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1995). The
Constitution requires no procedure at all, and the failure of prison officials to follow their own
procedures does not, of itself, violate the Constitution. Maust v. Headley, 959 F.2d 644, 648 (7th
Cir. 1992); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091 (7th Cir. 1982). Further, denying a grievance does
not violate the Constitution and cannot form the basis for a claim under Section 1983. George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-610 (7th Cir. 2007).
Pending motions
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) will be ruled on in due
course.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall count as one of his allotted “strikes” under
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE and enter judgment accordingly.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 23, 2012.

s/ G. Patrick Murphy
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

4