Johnson v. Mohr et al
Filing
6
Memorandum Opinion and Order: this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. This case is closed. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 9/24/2018. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Clifford T. Johnson,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00900
Plaintiff
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Gary C. Mohr, et al.,
Defendants
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Pro se Plaintiff Clifford T. Johnson filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Recreation (“ODRC”) Director Gary C. Mohr, North Central
Correctional Complex (“NCCC”) Warden Neil Turner, NCCC Unit Manager Shelley Curry, and
NCCC Rules Infraction Board (“RIB”) Sergeant Alissa Rushing. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
contends there was insufficient evidence to support the RIB’s finding of guilt to conduct charges
brought against him. He claims he was denied due process and seeks an order vacating the RIB’s
decision.
Plaintiff is currently an inmate in NCCC. He alleges that on November 2, 2015, Curry wrote
a conduct report against him, charging him with breaking and entering, procuring or attempting to
procure unauthorized drugs or to introduce unauthorized drugs into a correctional facility, and
conspiracy to commit rules violations. The Complaint does not clearly describe the incident or
incidents giving rise to the charges. Plaintiff indicates inmates broke into a prison office through an
opening for an air conditioner unit. He also indicates there were packages of drugs, tobacco, and
cell phones “thrown over the fence behind Morrow AB.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4). It is not clear whether
these incidents were related.
Plaintiff disputes that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt. He states
that a confidential informant provided the information used to bring the conduct charges. He
indicates that another inmate confessed to breaking into the office, and there was no photographic
evidence nor physical evidence that established his guilt. He states he asked to see the video footage
of the office, but his request was denied. He asked for three inmates and two officers to be called as
witnesses at the hearing but this request was also denied. He was found guilty of the charges and
appealed this decision to the warden. Turner indicated to him that the charges would be reheard;
however, the rehearing took place without him being present. He indicates his security classification
was increased as a result of the finding of guilt, but he does not specify the other sanctions imposed.
Plaintiff claims he was denied due process.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)
(per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), I am required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
action under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898
F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or
when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).
2
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not
required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned,
the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers
legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this
pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, I must construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for denial of due
process against ODRC Director Gary C. Mohr, NCCC Warden Neil Turner, or NCCC Unit
Manager Shelley Curry. Plaintiff cannot establish the liability of any Defendant absent a clear
showing that the Defendant was personally involved in the activities which form the basis of the
alleged unconstitutional behavior. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976); Mullins v. Hainesworth,
No. 95-3186, 1995 WL 559381 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995). There are no allegations against Mohr in
the body of the Complaint. The only allegation against Turner is that he considered Plaintiff’s
appeal of his disciplinary conduct charges, and ordered a rehearing. Plaintiff alleges Curry wrote the
conduct report against him. No other allegations in the pleading appear to pertain to her. Plaintiff
has not stated a plausible claim against these Defendants.
Furthermore, even if Curry was mistaken in accusing Plaintiff of a rules infraction, the
Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee that only the guilty will be charged. See Baker v.
McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 (1979). The only question presented is whether she denied Plaintiff due
process. Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting she participated directly in the hearing process.
3
Finally, this court’s ability to review prison disciplinary proceedings is limited. District
courts have no authority to review a disciplinary committee’s resolution of factual disputes, or to
make a redetermination of an inmate’s innocence or guilt. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional
Institution at Wolpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). The only question for the Court to determine is
whether the hearing complied with the basic requirements needed to satisfy due process before a
prisoner is deprived of good time credit. The standard is not a difficult one to meet.
To comply with the requirements of the Due Process Clause, prison officials need only
provide a prisoner facing loss of good time credits with: (1) a written notice of the charges at least 24
hours prior to any hearing, (2) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in
his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or
correctional goals, and (3) a written statement by the fact-finders as to the evidence relied on and the
reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-66 (1972). Prisoners do not
have a due process right of confrontation and cross-examination, or a right to counsel, in prison
disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 569-70.
Furthermore, due process requires only that disciplinary findings resulting in the loss of
good time credits be supported by “some evidence” in the record. Superintendent, Massachusetts
Correctional Institution at Wolpole, 472 U.S. at 454-56. This standard is satisfied where “there is any
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id.
The DHO is not required to base findings on overwhelming or irrefutable proof of guilt. Even
where the evidence is contradictory or partially exculpatory, a DHO may base a finding of guilt on
only “some evidence” that indicates the prisoner is guilty. Id. at 457.
In this case, Plaintiff provides very little information about the disciplinary hearing and the
result. He has not indicated that loss of good time credit was part of his sanction. He does not
allege Rushing failed to provide adequate notice of the charges or the hearing. He provides very little
4
information about the hearing or the rehearing. He indicates that the charges against him were
based on information and testimony provided by a confidential informant. That is some evidence of
guilt. Without additional allegations, there is no suggestion Plaintiff was denied due process.
CONCLUSION
Having considered and examined the pro se Plaintiff’s pleadings to determine their legal
viability, I conclude they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, this
action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. This case is closed.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
5
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?