Criddle v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 12 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by Glen H. Davidson on 6/20/13. (tab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
EARNEST M. CRIDDLE
PLAINTIFF
v.
No.4:11CV15-D-V
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Earnest M.
Criddle, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the
purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated
when he filed this suit. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case shall be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Criddle alleges that, though he is eligible for parole based upon the criteria in place at
the time of his conviction, the Mississippi Department of Corrections has erroneously denied him
the ability to seek parole, based upon a law passed after his conviction. As an initial matter, the
plaintiffs § 1983 claims based upon the violation of state law should be dismissed for failure to
state a constitutional claim; violation of state law does not, alone, give rise to a cause of action
under § 1983. Williams v. Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 900 (5 th Cir. 1982). Next, the Due Process
Clause provides protection only from those state procedures which imperil a protected liberty or
property interest. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250-51, 103 S. Ct. 1741, 1748, 75 L. Ed.
2d 813 (1983). Thus, unless the Mississippi statutes governing parole afford prisoners a liberty
or property interest, a prisoner cannot mount a procedural or substantive due process challenge to
the actions ofthe parole board. Allison v. Kyle) 66 F.3d 71 (5 th Cir. 1995). Mississippi parole
statutes do not) however, bestow a liberty or property interest to prisoners; hence, Mississippi
prisoners cannot challenge the decisions of the parole board on due process grounds. Irving v.
Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215) 1218 (5 th Cir. 1984). Therefore, the plaintiffs due process claims
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The
plaintiff s final claim, equal protection, must fail, as well, as the plaintiff has failed to identify
"two or more relevant persons or groups" which the government has classified and treated
differently) to the plaintiffs detriment; thus this final claim should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Vera v. Tue, 73 F.3d 604, 609-10 (5 th Cir.
1996). In sum, all of the plaintiff s claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted under 28 U .S.c. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A final judgment consistent
with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 20 th day of June, 2013.
lsi Glen H. Davidson
SENIOR 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?