Ducksworth v. Bobo et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 6 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by Senior Judge Glen H. Davidson on 5/26/15. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

GREENVILLE DIVISION

NORA DUCKSWORTH

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 4: 15CV47-GHD-DAS

JBOBO,ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1bis matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint ofNora Ducksworth, who
challenges the conditions of his confmement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes ofthe Prison
Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit.
Ducksworth alleges that he was falsely accused and found guilty oftwo prison rule infractions. For
the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
Allegations

Ducksworth, who is serving a life sentence in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections for armed robbery and murder, alleges that he has been falsely found guilty of two Rule
Violation Reports involving a stabbing incident. The first Rule Violation Report charged him with
assaultive action resulting in serious bodily injury; the second charged that he gave support to the
Gangster Disciples prison gang. The punishment for each infraction was 30 days' loss of priVileges.
Sandin

Under the ruling in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418
(1995), the plaintiff has not set forth a valid claim for violation of the Due Process Clause or any other
constitutional protection. Though "[s]tates may under certain circumstances create liberty interests
which are protected by the Due Process Clause, ... 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." ld. 115 S. Ct. at 2300
(citations omitted). In Sandin, the discipline administered the prisoner was confinement in isolation.
This discipline fell "within the expected parameters ofthe sentence imposed by a court oflaw," id. at
2301, and "did not present the type ofatypical, significant deprivation in which a State might
conceivably create a liberty interest." ld. Therefore, neither the Due Process Clause itself nor State
law or regulations gave rise to a liberty interest providing the procedural protections set forth in Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). See also Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958
(5 th 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 the present case, the plaintiff's punishment was 30 days' loss of privileges for each
infraction. Such punishment clearly lies "within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed by
a court of law," id. at 2301, and "did not present the type ofatypical, significant deprivation in which a
State might conceivably create a liberty interest." ld. As such, the plaintiffs allegations regarding
violation of his right to due process are without merit, and the instant case will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

SO ORDERED, this, the 261h day of May, ~

SENIOR JUDGE

-2­

4, D
~