Ruffins v. Elliott et al
Filing
11
ORDER AND REASONS ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 and Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim is Dismissed With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(ijg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JARVIS RUFFINS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 14-1042
LT. JOY ELLIOT, ET. AL.
SECTION: “B”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before
the
Court
is
pro
se
Plaintiff
Jarvis
Ruffin’s
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
regarding his civil rights claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed this claim against St.
Tammany Parish Jail officials Lieutenant Joy Elliot, Warden Greg
Longino, and Captain Miller. (Rec. Doc. No. 1).
Magistrate Judge Knowles recommends this claim be dismissed
with prejudice. (Rec. Doc. No. 4).
On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff
timely filed his objection to the recommendation. (Rec. Doc. No.
7).
For the reasons enumerated below,
Magistrate
Judge
Knowles’s
Report
and
Recommendation
is
ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.1
1
We are grateful for work on this case by Nicholas Norris, a Tulane
University Law School extern with our Chambers.
1
Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff,
Parish
Jail,
a
prisoner
claims
incarcerated
Warden
Greg
in
Longino
the
and
St.
Tammany
Lieutenant
Joy
Elliot have improperly denied him participation in the jail’s
work-release program.
“nepotism
despite
and
He alleges that Lt. Elliot has displayed
cronyism”
their
jail
by
instead
other
inmates,
and
habitual
(Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 8-11).
He also
disciplinary
offender backgrounds.
choosing
infractions
claims he was told habitual offenders, as he is classified, are
only eligible to participate in the program during the final six
months
of
their
incarceration.
Plaintiff
believes
he
was
eligible in 2012, but was denied after his interview in the
autumn of 2013.
(Rec. Doc. No. 4 at 3).
Plaintiff makes similar claims of nepotism and cronyism in
the denial of his request to transfer to a different prison.
He
alleges he was the recipient of an improper and discriminatory
disciplinary infraction (“write-up”) for possession of tobacco,
which prejudiced both his transfer and his application for workrelease. (Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 11).
Finally,
have
failed
Plaintiff
to
passionately
follow
their
alleges
published
that
policies
Defendants
in
myriad
respects: from Lt. Elliot giving preferential treatment to an
inmate he claims is her daughter’s boyfriend, to the prison
administration’s
failures
to
comply
2
with
his
requests
for
documentation regarding his work release and transfer denials;
to general preference for inmates hailing from certain towns and
parishes. (See Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 7-12).
Law and Analysis
I. Standard of Review
Title
screen
28
suits
government
U.S.C.
where
§
a
entity,
1915A
requires
plaintiff
officer,
seeks
or
courts
civil
employee.
to
immediately
redress
from
Regarding
a
this
screening, the statute provides:
“…the court shall identify cognizable claims or
dismiss
the
complaint,
or
any
portion
of
the
complaint, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact.” Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174,
176 (5th Cir. 1994).
empowered
legal
to
In making this determination, the court is
dismiss
theor[ies],”
as
claims
well
based
as
on
those
“indisputably
claims
“whose
meritless
factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown),
Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted when the plaintiff fails to allege enough facts to state
a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
3
U.S. 662, 677 (2009).
These factual allegations, when assumed
to be true, must raise a right to relief above the speculative
level. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191,
205 (5th Cir. 2007).
plaintiff’s
factual
A claim is facially plausible when the
allegations
allow
the
court
to
draw
the
reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the alleged
misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The
Court
should
broadly
construe
pro
se
civil
rights
claims in making these determinations. Moore v. McDonald, 30
F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994)(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972)).
II. Analysis
Plaintiff’s Due Process Claim
For Plaintiff to make out a successful due process claim,
he must base it on an enforceable liberty or property interest.
Plaintiff seeks to rely on Louisiana’s work release statute, La.
Rev.
Stat.
Ann.
§
15:711,
to
establish
this
interest.
The
statute provides, in pertinent part: “[t]he Department of Public
Safety and Corrections is hereby authorized to establish and
administer a work release program for inmates of any institution
under the jurisdiction of the department.
establish
rules
for
the
administration
The department shall
of
program…” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:711(A)-(B).
4
the
work
release
The
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fifth
Circuit
has
repeatedly held that the work release statute does not create a
due process interest, as it merely vests work release discretion
in the prison administration.
James v. Hertzog, 415 Fed. App’x
530, 532 (5th Cir. 2011); accord Welch v. Thompson, 20 F.3d 636,
644 (5th Cir. 1994).
provides
a
The Louisiana work-release statute merely
conditional
“enforceable
interest
expectation
of
in
the
placement
program,
in
a
not
an
work-release
program.” James, 415 F.App’x at 532. Without this “enforceable
expectation,” the statute does not “create a liberty interest
that
is
entitled
Plaintiff
lacks
to
an
due-process
enforceable
protection.”
interest
in
Id.
Because
work-release
participation, his due process claim is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Claim
To successfully state an equal protection claim in this
context, Plaintiff must allege that a state actor intentionally
discriminated against him on the basis of his membership in a
“protected class.”
James,
415
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982);
Fed.App’x
at
532.
Plaintiff
claims
he
received
unequal treatment in comparison to that of other prisoners; but
he does not contend that this uneven treatment was based on any
constitutionally-protected class membership.
names
fellow
inmates
who
were
5
granted
work
For instance, he
release
despite
prison
infractions,
alleging
that
prison
officials
simply
favored them, but he does not claim that this favoritism was
based on race or creed. At no point does Plaintiff establish or
separate himself from other inmates on the basis of a protected
class.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s
equal
protection
claim
is
DISMISSED.
Plaintiff’s Claim that His Rights Were Violated by Denial of
Transfer
In
the
absence
of
a
state
statute,
an
inmate
has
no
constitutional right to transfer. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215,
224-25 (1976); Biliski v. Harborth, 55 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.
1995). In Louisiana, discretion is vested in prison officials to
grant
transfer,
just
as
it
is
left
to
them
to
grant
work
release. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:711; Biliski, 55 F.3d at 162.
Such discretion does not create a constitutional due process
right in an expectation of transfer.
Plaintiff’s claim that his
rights were violated by denial of his transfer is accordingly
DISMISSED.
Plaintiff’s Claim that Lt. Elliot Has Violated Prison Policies
The Fifth Circuit has long held that a prison official’s
failure to follow the prison’s own policies does not, without
more, establish a constitutional violation. Samford v. Dretke,
6
562 F.3d 674, 681 (5th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has not established
a
cognizable
violation
of
the
U.S.
Constitution
by
simply
alleging Lt. Elliot’s favoritism or perceived failures to follow
the prison’s rulebook.
This claim is accordingly DISMISSED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons enumerated above, the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, overruling Rufins'
objections, and his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of December, 2014.
_____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?