Collier (ID 47548) v. Bryan et al

Filing 18

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 11 to amend the complaint is granted. The amended complaint is dismissed as stating no claim for relief. Plaintiff's motions 15 , 16 & 17 for rulings are thereby moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 1/23/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Jeffrey S. Collier by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JEFFREY S. COLLIER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3102-SAC

OFFICER BRYAN, et al.,
Defendants.

O R D E R
This matter is before the court on a pro se complaint seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, submitted by a prisoner incarcerated
in a Kansas correctional facility.
Plaintiff seeks relief on allegations involving his refusal to
comply with an order to get off the grass.

Contending the grass was

not a restricted area, plaintiff claims the officer filed unfounded
disciplinary charges against plaintiff simply to harass and punish
plaintiff, and that the hearing officer in the resulting disciplinary
proceeding did not allow plaintiff to call witnesses who would have
supported plaintiff’s defense.

The defendants named in the complaint

include the officer who wrote the disciplinary report, the Unit Team
Manager who approved that report, and various prison officials who
were involved in or upheld the disciplinary action.
The court reviewed plaintiff’s allegations, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
and found they failed to state any actionable constitutional claim
for purposes of seeking relief under § 1983.

The court thus directed

plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be summarily

dismissed.

Before the court is plaintiff’s response and amended

complaint.
In the show cause order dated July 5, 2012, the court noted that
plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying an order and insubordination,
and that it appeared the sanction imposed for these two offenses
involved only a restriction on his privileges for 30 days and a $5.00
fine.

Because this disciplinary action did not “work a major

disruption in [a prisoner's] environment” or “inevitably affect the
duration of his sentence,” the court found plaintiff had not suffered
an atypical, significant hardship that triggered any protection under
the Due Process Clause.
(1995).

See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486–87

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not identify any greater

disciplinary sanction or hardship.

And it is well established that

bare

insufficient

allegations

of

constitutional claim.
(1998).

malice

are

to

establish

a

Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588

The court thus continues to find the plaintiff’s allegations

regarding the challenged disciplinary charges and adjudication
process present no actionable claim under the Due Process Clause.
Also in the show cause order, the court found that plaintiff’s
complaint presented no actionable claim under the Equal Protection
Clause.

In response plaintiff explains that he is not asking for a

rehearing or the dismissal of the challenged disciplinary action.
Instead, he states he included information about that disciplinary
action to show that the charging officer violated plaintiff’s rights,
and that all other defendants had a duty to protect plaintiff from
such misconduct and failed to do so.

Nonetheless, the facts provided

in the complaint as amended wholly fail to suggest that plaintiff was

a member of a suspect class, that plaintiff was treated differently
from similarly-situated prisoners, or that defendants’ actions
regarding the disciplinary charge and adjudication were not within
the legitimate penological purpose of managing prisoner order and
safety.

See e.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979)(prison

officials are to be “accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption
and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are
needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain
institutional security”).

The court thus continues to find no

actionable claim is presented under the Equal Protection Clause.
Plaintiff also now specifically contends that defendants acted
with “deliberate indifference” in failing to investigate the facts
underlying the disciplinary charge, and that violated employee rules
of conduct and ethical codes.
indifference”

is

insufficient

constitutional significance.
544, 555 (2007).

However, the mere label of “deliberate
to

state

a

plausible

claim

of

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

And alleged violations of state professional codes

and prison regulations provide no basis for seeking relief under §
1983.

Jones v. City & County of Denver, Colo., 854 F.2d 1206, 1209

(10th Cir.1998).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein and in the show
cause order dated July 5, 2012, the court concludes the amended
complaint should be dismissed as stating no claim for relief.

28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 11)

to

amend the complaint is granted, and that the amended complaint is
dismissed as stating no claim for relief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for rulings (Docs.
15, 16,and 17) are thereby moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 23rd day of January 2013 at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge