Lentz v. Smith et al

Filing 33

Memorandum Opinion: Lentz failed to demonstrate any circumstances which would warrant amendment or alteration, his motion must be denied. Further, I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. re 28 Motion to alter/amend judgment filed by Steven L. Lentz, 31 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 3/26/2019. (SG,D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Steven L. Lentz,

Case No. 3:16-cv-530
Plaintiff

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cori Smith, et al.,
Defendants

On November 27, 2017, I dismissed pro se Plaintiff Steven L. Lentz’s § 1983 Due Process
action, concluding Lentz had failed to state a protected liberty interest of which he was deprived.
(Doc. No. 24). Specifically, I concluded neither Defendants’ failure to provide him with an Ohio
Administrative Code Section 5120-9-08(C) compliant hearing before the Rules Infraction Board, nor
the sanction of ten days in isolation which resulted from the noncompliant hearing deprived Lentz
of a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. This is so because neither affected his
sentence or imposed an “atypical and significant hardship on [Lentz] in relation to ordinary incidents
of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Lentz now moves to alter or amend my previous ruling. (Doc. Nos. 28 & 31). Defendants
filed a memorandum in opposition to Lentz’s motion. (Doc. No. 32).
“A court may grant a motion to alter or amend judgment only if there was ‘(1) a clear error
of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to
prevent manifest injustice.’” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky. v. McCreary Cnty., Ky. 607 F.3d 439, 450
(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)).

In the motion to alter or amend, Lentz does not allege I erred in concluding Defendants’
noncompliance with O.A.C. 5120-9-08 resulted in no “atypical and significant hardship” or change
in his sentence. Instead, he reargues noncompliance alone constitutes a Due Process violation. But
unfortunately for Lentz, that is not so under the current state of the law. As I stated in my previous
opinion, following Sandin, mandatory language in the state regulation does not create a Due Processprotected liberty interest. (Doc. No. 24 at 6-7 (citing Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84)). Rather, it is the
“nature of the deprivation” that governs. Sandin, 515 U.S. 482-84.
Therefore, because Lentz failed to demonstrate any circumstances which would warrant
amendment or alteration, his motion must be denied. Further, I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

2