McKinney v. Mississippi State Penitentiary et al

Filing 11

OPINION re 10 Final Judgment dismissing case. Signed by Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr. on 2/09/06. (pbs, USDC)

Download PDF
McKinney v. Mississippi State Penitentiary et al Doc. 11 Case 4:06-cv-00012-WAP-JAD Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION AARON McKINNEY, V. MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY, ET AL, PLAINTIFF NO. 4:06CV12-P-D DEFENDANTS OPINION This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, files this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He states that he received a Rule Violation Report (RVR), then appeared before a disciplinary committee which conducted a hearing on the RVR. He was found guilty of the offense, and was punished for the violation. Plaintiff contends that there were many errors in the proceeding, including using the wrong rule number and untimely processing of the RVR. He contends that as a result, he should not have been punished and should have the RVR expunged from his records. After carefully considering the contents of the pro se complaint and giving it the liberal construction required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this court has come to the following conclusion. Federal courts do not "second-guess" the findings and determinations of prison disciplinary committees. The plaintiff was afforded a disciplinary hearing on the RVR, thus meeting the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The Constitution does not demand "error-free decision making ...." Collins v. King, 743 F.2d 248, 253-54 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting McCrae v. Hankins, 720 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 1983)). Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:06-cv-00012-WAP-JAD Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 It is clear that whether claims are habeas corpus or civil rights in nature the plaintiff must be deprived of some right secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215, 1216 (5th Cir. 1984)(citing 28 U.S.C. 2254(a) (1982); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979); and Trussell v. Estelle, 699 F.2d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 1983)). In the event there is no constitutional right, the plaintiff's complaint fails. Irving, 732 F.2d at 1216 (citing Thomas v. Torres, 717 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983)). Since the acts complained of by plaintiff meet the due process requirements, they do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Therefore they must be dismissed as failing to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. A final judgment in accordance with this opinion will be entered. THIS the 9th day of February 2006. /s/ W. Allen Pepper, Jr. W. ALLEN PEPPER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?