NAYLOR v. KING

Filing 9

Entry Screening and Dismissing Complaint and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause - Naylor's due process claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Naylor shall have through July 26, 2018, in which to eit her show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue or file an amended complaint which cures the deficiencies discussed in this Entry. Any amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint and therefore must be c omplete. If Naylor fails to respond to this order to show cause, the case will be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, without further notice. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/25/2018.(NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOHN NAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY KING individually,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-01895-TWP-MJD

Entry Screening and Dismissing Complaint
and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause
I. Screening
Plaintiff John Naylor (“Naylor”) is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Pendleton
Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”). He brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an
obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the defendant.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies
the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
The complaint names Jeffrey King as the defendant. Naylor alleges that Jeffrey King,
who apparently was a hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding, violated his due process
rights. Naylor seeks injunctive relief in the form of expungement of the disciplinary conviction
and other demands, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Dkt. 2 at 13.
Naylor alleges that Mr. King issued a “false conviction” and that he denied witnesses and
was not an impartial decision-maker. Naylor contends that he should have either been cleared on
the A-106 charge or been given a less severe sanction. Naylor was placed in disciplinary
segregation for an unspecified period of time as a result of the guilty finding. He alleges that this
prevented him from having contact visits with his mother who was battling cancer.
Naylor does not have a constitutional right to avoid false disciplinary charges.
Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624-25 (7th Cir. 2006) (due process rights are not
violated if a false conduct report is filed). “[E]ven assuming fraudulent conduct on the part of
prison officials, the protection from such arbitrary action is found in the procedures mandated by
due process.” McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 794, 787 (7th Cir. 1999).
Moreover, to the extent Naylor alleges that he was placed in disciplinary segregation
without due process, the due process clause is triggered only when the government deprives an
individual of life, property or liberty. See Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490
U.S. 454, 459-60 (1989). Decisions and actions by prison authorities which do not deprive an
inmate of a protected liberty interest may be made for any reason or for no reason. Montgomery
v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001) (when no recognized liberty or property interest

has been taken, the confining authority is free to use any procedures it chooses, or no procedures
at all).
“Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to remain in the general population.” Isby v.
Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 524 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 480 (1995)).
An inmate has a due process liberty interest in being in the general prison population only if the
conditions of his confinement impose “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation
to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. “[B]oth the duration and the
conditions of the segregation must be considered in determining whether due process is
implicated.” Isby, 856 F.3d at 524 (internal quotation omitted). Here, Naylor does not allege the
duration or any severely restrictive conditions of his time in segregation. Nothing in the
complaint compels a conclusion that his segregation resulted in an atypical and significant
hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
Therefore, Naylor’s due process claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
“[A] plaintiff can plead himself out of court by alleging facts that show there is no viable
claim.” Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th Cir. 2008). That is the case here.
II. Report Change of Address
The pro se plaintiff shall report any change of address within seven (7) days of any
change. If the plaintiff fails to keep the Court informed of his current address, the action may be
subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
III. Show Cause
The plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for the reasons set forth above. Naylor shall
have through July 26, 2018, in which to either show cause why Judgment consistent with this

Entry should not issue or file an amended complaint which cures the deficiencies discussed in
this Entry. Any amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint and
therefore must be complete. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir.
2013) (“Without at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP
applicant’s case could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or
opportunity to be heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”).
If Naylor fails to respond to this order to show cause, the case will be dismissed in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 6/25/2018

Distribution:
JOHN NAYLOR
128761
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only