SEARCY v. MANSON et al

Filing 7

Entry and Order Dismissing Action - Because Darla Searcy is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(h), the court has screened her complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(b). The dismissal of the action is now mandatory. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/18/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DARLA SEARCY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MR. MANSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-122-JMS-WGH

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
A.
Because Darla Searcy is a Aprisoner@ as defined by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(h), the
court has screened her complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b). Pursuant to
this statute, "[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). A complaint falls within this category if it “alleg[es] facts
that show there is no viable claim.@ Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th. Cir.
2008).
Searcy’s action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “the ubiquitous tort
remedy for deprivations of rights secured by federal law (primarily the Fourteenth
Amendment) by persons acting under color of state law.” Jackson v. City of Joliet,
715 F.2d 1200, 1201 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1049 (1984). Searcy’s
claim is that the defendants were responsible for improperly changing her inmate
classification from Level 1 to Level 2. She seeks an order requiring the defendants
to reclassify her to Level 1 and to place her on work release.
“[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). No viable claim is
asserted pursuant to § 1983, however, unless Searcy asserts 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).

Searcy was given the opportunity to identify the federal right she seeks to
vindicate in this action. She has responded by referencing both the Eighth and the
Fourteenth Amendments. Even as supplemented, however, Searcy’s complaint falls
short of stating a plausible claim for relief.
•

The Eighth Amendment proscribes conditions of confinement for inmates
constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Searcy’s change of classification
does not implicate the protection of the Eighth Amendment. James v.
Milwaukee County, 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992)("not all prison
conditions trigger eighth amendment scrutiny--only deprivations of basic
human needs like food, medical care, sanitation, and physical safety.").

•

Invoking the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment takes
Searcy’s claim no further. See Townsend v. Fuchs, 552 F.3d 765, 772 (7th Cir.
2008) (quoting Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 222-24 (2005)); Lucien v.
DeTella, 141 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Classifications of inmates
implicate neither liberty nor property interests. . . .”) (citing Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).

Federal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of prison
inmates. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987)). As explained above, no such
claim has been asserted here.
B.
The plaintiff has pled herself 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); see also
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)(“Dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the
absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”). The dismissal
of the action is now mandatory. Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773,
775 (7th Cir. 2002).
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

09/18/2012
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Darla Searcy
933513
Rockville Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
811 West 50 North
Rockville, IN 47872