Calzadilla v. M.D.O.C.

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER : that Calzadilla's habeas corpus claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Calzadillas 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this dismissal will count as a strike in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/17/2017 (Copy mailed to plaintiff).(cwl) Modified on 7/17/2017 (cwl).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

YURI CALZADILLA, #141943

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 3:17-cv-221-TSL-RHW

VIVIAN FRAZER

DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration
of

dismissal.

Plaintiff

Yuri

Calzadilla,

an

inmate

of

the

Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), brings this pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The named defendant is
Vivian Frazer, a Commander at the Central Mississippi Correctional
Facility.
[9].

Calzadilla is proceeding in forma pauperis.

See Order

The court, having liberally construed Calzadilla’s complaint

[1] and response [14] in consideration with the applicable law,
finds that this case should be dismissed.
I.

Plaintiff’s Claims
Calzadilla states that on February 15, 2016, he was issued a

Rule Violation Report (“RVR”) for possession of major contraband
by defendant Frazer.

Calzadilla states that as a result of this

RVR, in August of 2016, his custody level was reduced and on
February 15, 2017, his good-time sentence credits were taken.
Calzadilla also states that he was fired from his prison job.
Calzadilla

complains

that

there

should

be

a

time

limit

on

punishment for this RVR.

Calzadilla further claims that defendant

Frazer abused her power and broke MDOC rules and regulations.
Calzadilla brings this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
seeking restoration of his lost good-time sentence credits and
an order directing MDOC to award him a specific custodial
classification level. Compl [1] at 6.
II.

Analysis
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

(as amended), applies to prisoners proceeding 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

Calzadilla is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is
subject to the case-screening procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (e)(2).
Calzadilla’s

request

for

restoration

of

lost

good-time

sentence credits would result in Calzadilla receiving an earlier
release from incarceration.

This request must be pursued through

a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding habeas corpus is “sole federal
remedy” for inmate’s challenge to the duration of his confinement
seeking

immediate

release

or
2

a

speedier

release

from

imprisonment); Jackson v. Torres, 720 F.2d 877, 879 (5th Cir. 1983)
(reiterating that challenge to duration of prisoner’s confinement
is a habeas corpus matter).
restoration
dismissed

of

his

without

lost

Therefore, Calzadilla’s claims for

good-time

prejudice

to

sentence

Calzadilla’s

credits
pursuit

will
of

be

these

claims in a habeas corpus case.1
Calzadilla is also asking this court to direct MDOC to
award him a specific custody level or classification status.
The classification of prisoners is well within the broad
discretion of prison officials and should be “free from judicial
intervention.”

McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248, 1250-51 (5th

Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

An inmate simply does not have

a “constitutionally protected interest in either a custodial
classification or the possibility of earning good-time credits.”
Thomas v. Jordan, No. 07-60071, 2008 WL 4649095, *1 (5th Cir.
Oct. 21, 2008) (citing Neals v. Norwood, 59 F. 3d 520, 533 (5th
Cir. 1995)).

Nor does an inmate have a constitutionally

protected interest in a prison job.

See Bulger v. United

States, 65 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir.1995)(finding inmate’s loss of
prison job did not implicate a liberty interest even though the
inmate lost the ability to automatically accrue good-time

1 The court does not reach a determination of the viability of any possible
habeas claims; nonetheless, the clerk of court is directed to mail Calzadilla
a packet of habeas corpus forms for state inmates challenging their
imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

3

credits). MDOC’s failure to award Calzadilla a specific
custodial classification does not violate his constitutional
rights.

Thus, Calzadilla is not entitled to relief under §

1983.
Furthermore, the court finds that to the extent Calzadilla is
claiming that MDOC policy and procedure was violated by the
complained of punishment, he is not entitled to relief under
§ 1983.

These allegations, without more, simply do not rise to a

level of constitutional deprivation.

See Guiden v. Wilson, 244 F.

App’x 980, 981 (5th Cir. 2009) (“A violation of a prison rule by
itself is insufficient to set forth a claim of a constitutional
violation.”) (citing Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158
(5th Cir 1986)).
III.

Conclusion
The court has considered the pleadings and applicable law.

For the reasons stated, Calzadilla’s habeas corpus claims will be
dismissed without prejudice and Calzadilla’s § 1983 claims will be
dismissed as frivolous and for his failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-

(ii).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Calzadilla’s
habeas corpus claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Calzadilla’s § 1983
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this dismissal will
count as a “strike” in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform
Act.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g).
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 17th day of July, 2017.
/s/Tom S. Lee_________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5