Guillory v. Jones County Jail et al

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Angela Guthrie. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 30, 2015. (js)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT P. GUILLORY

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-157-KS-MTP

SHERIFF ALEX HODGE, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte for evaluating whether Plaintiff’s claims
should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Having
considered the record and applicable law and having conducted a Spears1 hearing, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Angela Guthrie should be dismissed and that the
case should continue as to the remaining Defendants.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Robert Guillory filed his Complaint [1] on September 22, 2014, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This lawsuit arises from events which took place while Plaintiff was a pretrial
detainee at the Jones County Adult Detention Facility in Ellisville, Mississippi, where he is
currently detained. Plaintiff’s claims and relief sought were clarified and amended by his sworn
testimony at the Spears hearing2 held on April 29, 2015.
According to Plaintiff, in August of 2013, he was placed in disciplinary confinement for
sixty days after he was involved in a physical altercation with an officer at the detention facility.

1

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

2

See Flores v. Livingston, 405 Fed. App’x. 931, 932 (5th Cir. 2010); Riley v. Collins, 828
F.2d 306, 307 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that allegations made at a Spears hearing supersede claims
alleged in the complaint).
1

Plaintiff asserts several claims relating to the physical altercation and his sixty day disciplinary
confinement in this action and in another action pending in this Court, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv156-MTP.
In part, Plaintiff complains that, during the sixty days when he was held in disciplinary
confinement, he wrote Angela Guthrie requesting supplies such as a pen, paper, and envelopes,
but she stated that he could not receive the supplies while he was in disciplinary confinement.
According to Plaintiff, he wanted the supplies in order to file suit regarding the claims he has
asserted in this action and the claims he has asserted in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-156-MTP.
ANALYSIS
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), applies to prisoner
proceedings in forma pauperis and provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if
the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” Since Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status, Section
1915(e)(2) applies to the instant case.
The United States Supreme Court has held that prisoners have a fundamental
constitutional right to “adequate, effective, and meaningful” access to the courts. Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977). Before an inmate may prevail on his claim, however, he must
demonstrate that he suffered “actual prejudice,” i.e. that the denial of access “hindered his efforts
to pursue a legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Ruiz v. United States, 160
F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998) (without proving actual injury, the plaintiff cannot prevail on an
access-to-courts claim); Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1063 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that a

2

civil rights claim cannot be based on “minor and short-lived impediments to access” in the
absence of actual prejudice).
In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant Guthrie hindered his ability to
pursue a legal claim. Plaintiff concedes that he eventually obtained assistance from a local
inmate legal assistance program while in disciplinary confinement and was able to procure the
supplies needed to submit pleadings to this Court. Moreover, at the Spears hearing, Plaintiff
explicitly stated that he did not lose a legal right due to Defendant Guthrie’s actions, and that he
was able to bring the claims he desired to bring. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has
communicated extensively with the Court in this matter and in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-156MTP. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to allege that he suffered any “actual injury,” his claim
against Defendant Guthrie will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Guthrie will be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

2.

A separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 will
be filed herein.

SO ORDERED this the 30th day of April, 2015.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

3