Smith v. W.C.C.R.C.F. et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 6 Order. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 06/29/11. (nsm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
DIMERASMITH
PLAINTIFF
No. l:11CVl13-B-A
w.c.c.Rc.F., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on thepro se prisoner complaint of Dimera Smith,
who challenges the conditions ofhis confinement under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. For the purposes
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the
of
plaintiffwas incarcerated when he filed
this suit. Smith alleges that on January 13, 201 I, he was improperly found guilty of a prison rule
violation (possession of
a
cellular telephone) upon hearsay evidence only. For the reasons set
forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcould
be granted.
No Right to Confrontation of Witnesses in a Prison Disciplinary Proceeding
The
plaintiff
s sole
claim is that he was found guilty of
a
prison rule violation based upon
hearsay evidence alone. This allegation, standing alone, does not state a due process claim, as
"adequate bases for decision in prison disciplinary cases can be arrived at without
cross-examination;' Il'olff v. McDonnell,4lS U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974) (holding that
cross-examination is not required in a proceeding to determine whether an inmate lost good time
credits). As the plaintiffdid not have the right to confront the witnesses against him
-
and has
not alleged that his punishment rose to the level necessary to trigger due process protections as
set forth in Sandin v.
Conner,sl5 U.S. 472,
115 S.
Ct.2293, 132 L. Ed.2d 418 (1995), his claim
fails on its face. As sucb, the instant case is DISIMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. A final judgpeirt consistent with this memorandum
opinion shall issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 29u dayof
lune,20ll.
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?