LEWIS v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 15

Entry and Order Dismissing Action - this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/10/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

PAUL LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STANLEY KNIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-174-WTL-DKL

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
An action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "[T]he first step in any
[§ 1983] claim is to identify the specific constitutional right infringed." Albright v.
Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). This is entirely sensible, because no action lies
under § 1983 unless a plaintiff has asserted the violation of a federal right. See
Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 19
(1981); Juriss v. McGowan, 957 F.2d 345, 349 n.1 (7th Cir. 1992) (without a predicate
constitutional violation one cannot make out a prima facie case under § 1983).
In this case, an Indiana prisoner brings a § 1983 action alleging his
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when he was placed or kept
in administrative segregation. The defendants are the prison superintendent, a
regional director of the Indiana Department of Correction, and a correctional
Sergeant at the prison where he is confined. However, nothing in the conduct
attributed to the defendants could be understood to violate any of Lewis’ federally
secured rights. Lucien v. DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 1998) (AClassifications
of inmates implicate neither liberty nor property interests . . . .@) (citing Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), "[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for
failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not
entitled to relief." Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). To survive dismissal

under this standard, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(internal quotations omitted).
"Federal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of
prison inmates." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987)). For the reasons explained
above, however, Lewis’ allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face and his complaint thus fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See Tregenza v. Great American Communications Co., 12 F.3d 717,
718 (7th Cir. 1993)(although the requirements of notice pleading are minimal, when
a plaintiff “pleads facts that show his suit is . . . without merit, he has pleaded
himself out of court”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1084 (1994).
Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b) is therefore
mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002),
and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/10/2012
Date: __________________
_______________________________

Distribution:
Paul Lewis
#873084
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana