Windham v. Wilkinson County Correctional Facility
Filing
8
Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal re 1 Complaint. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on July 5, 2012. (lda)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
OTIS EARL WINDHAM, # 10746
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12cv77-DCB-JMR
WILKINSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Plaintiff Otis Earl Windham’s Complaint [1] and
Response [7]. He is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections and brings this
action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for an alleged wrongful Rule Violation Report (“RVR”).
The Court has considered and liberally construed the pleadings. As set forth below, the Court
holds the case should be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant action. He is currently housed at the
Wilkinson County Correctional Facility. He alleges that on December 3, 2011, he was alone in
his cell when a fight broke out among other prisoners, outside of the cells. Despite the fact that
he stayed in his cell and did not participate, Corrections Officer E. Beauchamp wrote an RVR on
Plaintiff, accusing him of fighting. The surveillance footage allegedly exonerates him and was
witnessed by several unnamed staff members. He was nevertheless found guilty of the rule
violation by Yolanda Byrd. He claims, “Mrs. Byrd found me guilty as she was sitting there
laughing, and said off the record, she knew I was not fighting. . . .” Resp. [7]. As a result, he
was punished with a 30 day loss of canteen privileges, and “this stayed on [his] record.” Id.
Plaintiff claims all prison staff violated his rights by intentionally fabricating evidence
and falsifying the finding of guilt. He seeks compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages for
the resulting alleged emotional and constitutional injuries. Further, he appears to seek
expungement of the RVR.
DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, applies to prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis in this Court. One of the provisions reads, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time
if the court determines that . . . the action . . . –(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The statute “accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “[I]n an
action proceeding under Section 1915(d), [a federal court] may consider, sua sponte, affirmative
defenses that are apparent from the record even where they have not been addressed or raised.”
Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990). “Significantly, the court is authorized to test the
proceeding for frivolousness or maliciousness even before service of process or before the filing
of the answer.” Id. The Court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in this
action. His Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under Section 1915.
SECTION 1983
Plaintiff brings due process claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for alleged fabricated evidence
and a knowingly false RVR. He claims that he was wrongly punished for fighting, even though
prison staff knew or should have known that he was not. The RVR cost him canteen privileges
2
and is still on his record.
There “is no freestanding constitutional right” to be free from false charges. Castellano
v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 945 (5th Cir. 2003). On the other hand, the knowing use of fabricated
evidence may violate procedural due process or other constitutional rights. Id. at 953-54, 958.
To maintain a procedural due process claim, Plaintiff must show that the RVR either (1) affected
or “will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence” or (2) imposed an “atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 484, 487 (1995). Plaintiff does not allege that the RVR affected or will inevitably
affect his sentence. Rather, he complains that he was subject to thirty days loss of canteen
privileges. This loss of canteen privileges is not an atypical or significant hardship on the
inmate. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding 30 day loss of
commissary plus 30 day segregation did not implicate due process). This case is therefore
dismissed as frivolous. Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). This dismissal
counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
STATE LAW CLAIMS
To the extent Plaintiff asserts state law claims, they invoke the Court’s supplemental
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This jurisdiction may be declined if “the district court has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Since the
Court has dismissed the Section 1983 claims, it declines jurisdiction over the state law claims.
They are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
pro se Plaintiff Otis Earl Windham’s Section 1983 claims should be and are hereby
3
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). This
dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The state law claims are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate Final Judgment shall issue pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of July, 2012.
s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?