Price v. Outlaw et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 6 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 10/30/13. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
ROBERT E. PRICE,

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:13cv246-MPM-JMV

TIMOTHY OUTLAW, CORALETTA JONES, and
LT. COLLINS,

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff
Robert E. Price, a Mississippi inmate housed at the Marshall County Correctional Facility, has
filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Warden Timothy Outlaw, Captain
Coraletta Jones, and Lieutenant Collins. Having fully considered Plaintiff=s allegations and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the instant complaint should be dismissed for the following
reasons.
Screening Standards
Because Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, his
complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (APLRA@).
See 28 §U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (subjecting prisoner complaint to
preliminary screening regardless of in forma pauperis status). Pursuant to the PLRA, the Court is
obligated to evaluate the complaint and dismiss it if it is Afrivolous or malicious,@ if it Afails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted,@ or if it Aseeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.@ § 1915(e)(2). A claim is frivolous if it Alacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint fails to state
1

a claim upon which relief may be granted if relief could not be granted to the plaintiff Aunder any
set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations@ in the complaint. Bradley v.
Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (holding that complaint fails to state a claim only where it
does not plead Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face@).
Discussion
Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to follow the appropriate disciplinary procedures in
issuing him a Rule Violation Report (ARVR@) on August 20, 2013. According to Plaintiff, the
disciplinary hearing officer violated standard operating procedure by failing to sign and/or date the
RVR. Plaintiff=s appeal of this issue to Warden Outlaw was denied. Plaintiff asks the Court to
remove the incomplete RVR from his file and require Defendants to pay all costs associated with
this action. Accepting Plaintiff=s allegations as true, the Court nonetheless determines that the
instant complaint missed be dismissed, as Plaintiff’s claim fails to implicate a protected
constitutional interest.
In order to state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right
under the Constitution or the laws of the United States by a person acting under the color of state
law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Giving Plaintiff=s claim liberal construction, it

appears he is asserting that he was denied due process by Defendants= failure to follow institutional
policy and procedure. However, to invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause, a protected
liberty interest must be at issue. A prisoner=s constitutionally protected liberty interest is Alimited
to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardships on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents in prison life.@ Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
The failure by prison officials to follow institutional policy and procedure in drafting the RVR
2

does not implicate constitutional due process concerns. See Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91,
94 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that Aa prison official=s failure to follow the prison=s own policies,
procedures or regulations does not constitute a violation of due process, if constitutional minima
are nevertheless met@); Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986) (AA violation of
prison regulations, without more, does not give rise to a federal constitutional violation.@).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendants= actions violated his constitutional
rights, and his complaint fails. See Hoye v. Nelson, 4:07cv44-M-B, 2007 WL 1321964 at *1
(N.D. Miss. May 3, 2007) (citation omitted).
Conclusion
Plaintiff=s allegations fail to assert a cognizable constitutional violation, and this action is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for his failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This dismissal counts as a Astrike@ under 28 U.S.C§
1915(g). Plaintiff is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma
pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while incarcerated unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). A final judgment in accordance with this
opinion and order will be entered today.
SO ORDERED this the 30th day of October, 2013.

/s/ Michael P. Mills
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

3