Power v. Epps et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 11 Final Judgment. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 3/5/14. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
ARTIS POWER
PLAINTIFF
v.
No. 4:13CV173-NBB-JMV
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Artis Power, 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 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
Factual Allegations
Power claims that during routine urinalysis he tested positive for methamphetamine use even
though he had not used methamphetamine. He is taking the heartburn medication Ranitidine, and he
has submitted literature with his complaint that Ranitidine can cause a false positive test for
methamphetamine use during urinalysis. He was found guilty of a rule violation for drug use. During
the grievance process, the Warden of his area responded that medical staff “do not issue any
medication that would cause [an inmate] to test positive for Methamphetamine.” He wishes to have
the Rule Violation Report expunged from his record. Power believes that having the rule violation on
his record will lead to his placement in C-Custody, which he believes is more dangerous than his
current housing assignment.
Classification
Inmates have neither a protectable property or liberty interest to any particular housing
assignment or custodial classification, either under the United States Constitution or under Mississippi
law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Neals
v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995); Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992);
McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248, 1250 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 475-99 to -103 (1993). Prisoner classification is a matter squarely within the “broad discretion” of
prison officials, “free from judicial intervention” except in extreme circumstances. McCord, 910 F.2d
at 1250 (citations omitted). Power has not alleged an extreme circumstance to warrant the court’s
intervention in his housing assignment.
Sandin
In view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293,
132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995), the court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to set forth a claim which
implicates the Due Process Clause or any other constitutional protection. As the Court noted, “States
may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process
Clause [, but] these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not
exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process
Clause of its own force . . . nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. 115 S. Ct. at 2300 (citations omitted). In the
Sandin case, the discipline administered the prisoner was confinement in isolation. Because this
discipline fell “within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed by a court of law,” id. at 2301,
and “did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably
create a liberty interest,” id., the Court held that neither the Due Process Clause itself nor State law or
-2-
regulations afforded a protected liberty interest that would entitle the prisoner to the procedural
protections set forth by the Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). See
also Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5thn Cir. 2000) (holding prisoner’s thirty-day loss of
commissary privileges and cell restriction due to disciplinary action failed to give rise to due process
claim). In this case, Power is simply worried about a downgrade in custody, a punishment well within
those that could be expected in the normal incidents of prison life. As such, the instant case will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
SO ORDERED, this, the 5th day of March, 2014.
/s/ Neal Biggers
NEAL B. BIGGERS
SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
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?