Jackson v. Hartley
NOTICE and ORDER FIXING TIME TO RESPOND: IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have 14 days to file a response to this notice. The response may include identification of, and support for, any genuinely disputed material facts and the legal authorities which indicate that summary judgement for the defendant on the ground stated above is not appropriate, along with a supporting memorandum.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 1/11/2012. (CMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KENNEDY JACKSON (#297999)
ORDER FIXING TIME TO RESPOND
No opposition has been filed.
A review of the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint,
together with the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and his
warranted on a ground not raised by the defendant.
Specifically, because the plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force
disciplinary board, which found him guilty of the disciplinary
charge for defiance and imposed a loss of 30 days good time
credits, the plaintiff’s excessive force claim is barred by the
Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114
S.Ct. 2364 (1994). The Supreme Court has applied the Heck analysis
to a claim made by a prisoner challenging prison disciplinary
Record document number 30.
proceedings which resulted in a change to the length of the
prisoner’s incarceration due to a loss of good time credits.
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643-649, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1586-89
Applying the Heck/Balisok analysis, the plaintiff’s claim for
damages attributable to the alleged use of excessive force during
the August 28, 2009 incident is not cognizable at this time.
disciplinary charges for defiance (asserting that he removed his
left hand from the restraints and swung at the defendant which then
necessitated the use of force by the defendant) was invalid.
finding would call into question the disciplinary sentence, which
effectively lengthened the plaintiff’s confinement through the
associated disciplinary charges and, in the absence of a showing
that the disciplinary sentence has been overturned, the
not cognizable under § 1983.
Pursuant to Rule 56(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., the parties are hereby
placed on notice that the court may grant the defendant’s motion
for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the defendant.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have 14 days to file a
response to this notice.
The response may include identification
of, and support for, any genuinely disputed material facts and the
legal authorities which indicate that summary judgement for the
defendant on the ground stated above is not appropriate, along with
a supporting memorandum.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 11, 2012.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?