Imani v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution et al

Filing 5

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 4 Complaint filed by Sekou Muata Imani. Objections to R&R due by 9/11/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 8/25/2014. (pes1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SEKOU MUATA IMANI,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-1358
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King

WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated in the Ross
Correctional Institution (“RCI”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for injunctive and monetary relief in connection with
disciplinary proceedings against him and his subsequent transfer from
the Noble Correctional Institution (“NCI”).

This matter is now before

the Court for the initial screen of the Complaint required by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A.
Plaintiff complains that he was charged with three (3) rules
infractions by defendant Inspector Aufdinkampe,1 was denied requested
legal materials for 33 days by defendant Librarian Hupp and was
wrongfully convicted of those charges by the Rules Infraction Board
panel, defendants Lt. Burghy and C.O. Griffin.

Plaintiff also asserts

a claim against defendant NCI Warden Buchanan in connection with the
latter’s denial of plaintiff’s appeal from his convictions.

1

Plaintiff alleges that he was charged with establishing an improper
relationship with an employee, engaging in sexual contact with an employee
and attempting to procure or introduce drugs into a corrections facility.
Complaint, PageID# 20.

1

Plaintiff complains that he was convicted of the rules
infractions based only on “hearsay,” i.e., the testimony of defendant
Aufdinkampe, Complaint, PageID# 23, that he was denied the opportunity
to call witnesses to testify at the disciplinary hearing, id., and
that the delay in responding to plaintiff’s request for a copy of the
“Administrative Rules,” the “rule book of the Ohio State Supreme
Court,” and “copies made from motions I had to send to an attorney,”
id. at PageID# 22, prohibited plaintiff from “making a fair, solid,
defense” at the disciplinary hearing, id., and resulted in an attorney
declining to assist plaintiff in a case.2 Id.
Claims Arising from Prison Disciplinary Proceedings
Plaintiff asserts claims arising out of the disciplinary
proceedings against him.

Prison disciplinary proceedings do not give

rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest unless it
affects the duration of the prisoner’s confinement, or unless the
restrictions impose “atypical and significant hardship in relation to
the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 484 (1995). The Complaint refers to plaintiff’s placement in
segregation and it appears that plaintiff was later transferred to
RCI.

However, neither of these facts constitute events or conditions

that give rise to constitutional protections.

Sandin (A 30-day

placement in disciplinary segregation did not suffice to implicate a
protected liberty interest); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228
(1976)(A prisoner does not have a liberty interest in transfer from
2

It appears that plaintiff was pursuing state post-conviction proceedings in
anticipation of a federal habeas corpus case. Complaint, PageID# 22.

2

one prison to another non-maximum security prison).
In any event, the Complaint fails to state a claim based on a
denial of procedural due process in connection with plaintiff’s
conviction of a rules infraction.

“[T]he requirements of due process

are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison
disciplinary board. . . .”

Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional

Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)(emphasis
added).

“[T]he relevant question is whether there is any evidence in

the record that could support the conclusion reached by the
disciplinary board.”

Id.

Plaintiff’s own allegations confirm that

his convictions were based on some evidence, i.e., the testimony of
defendant Aufdinkampe.

The fact that plaintiff disagrees with that

evidence is of no constitutional import.
Claims Arising from Alleged Delay in Providing Legal Materials and
Copies

Plaintiff complains that, because defendant Hupp delayed for 33
days plaintiff’s request for a copy of certain rules and regulations
and copies of motions filed in the Ohio Supreme Court, he was
prejudiced in defending against the disciplinary charges against him
and in obtaining counsel to assist him in his state court action. The
First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to
inmates a right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977); Pilgrim v.
Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). However, the right
relates only to challenges to the inmate’s conviction or sentence or

3

to challenges to the conditions of confinement.

Lewis, 518 U.S. at

355. Because the Complaint appears to allege that defendant Hupp’s
delay in providing certain materials prejudiced plaintiff in his
ability to pursue state court post-conviction proceedings, the Court
concludes that, at this juncture, plaintiff’s First Amendment claim
may proceed.
It is therefore ORDERED that, at this juncture, the claim against
defendant Hupp for alleged denial of plaintiff’s right of access to
the courts may proceed.3 If plaintiff provides a copy of the Complaint,
a summons and a Marshal service form for this defendant, the United
States Marshals Service is ORDERED to effect service of process, by
certified mail, on this defendant, who shall have forty-five (45) days
after service to respond to the Complaint.
It is RECOMMENDED that the claims against defendants Aufdinkampe,
Burghy, Griffin and Buchanan arising out of the disciplinary
proceedings against plaintiff be dismissed.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

3

28

Response to objections

The Court expresses no opinion as to whether plaintiff properly exhausted his
administrative remedies in connection with this claim. See 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a).

4

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court.

See, e.g., Pfahler v.

Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that
“failure

to

constituted

object
a

waiver

to

the

of

[the

magistrate
defendant’s]

judge’s

recommendations

ability

to

appeal

the

district court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976,
984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant waived appeal of district
court’s

denial

magistrate

of

pretrial

judge’s

report

motion
and

by

failing

to

recommendation).

timely
Even

object

when

to

timely

objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those
objections is waived.

Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir.

2007) (“[A] general objections to a magistrate judge’s report, which
fails

to

specify

the

issues

of

contention,

does

not

suffice

preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: August 25, 2014

5

to