McCracken et al v. Rowland et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/14/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

TRISTAN McCRACKEN and
JACOB GOETHE
Plaintiffs,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
BUCKY ROWLAND, et al.
Defendants.

No. 1:15-0118
Chief Judge Sharp

M E M O R A N D U M
The plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, are inmates at the Maury
County Jail in Columbia, Tennessee. They bring this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bucky Rowland, Sheriff of Maury County;
and Debra Wagonschutz, a member of the staff at the Maury County
Jail; seeking injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs allege that they have either been terminated
from or denied work assignments that would have provided them with
additional privileges due to favoritism. They further claim that
the grievance procedures at the Jail are inadequate to redress
their complaints.
To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs
must plead and prove that the defendants, while acting under color
of

state

law,

deprived

them

of

some

right

secured

by

the

Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451
1

U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
An inmate's expectation of obtaining or retaining a particular
job assignment has not been recognized as a property or liberty
interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
Dellis v. Corrections Corporation of America, 257 F.3d 508,511 (6th
Cir.2001).

Therefore,

the

Constitution

does

not

provide

the

plaintiffs with an independent right to obtain or keep a particular
work assignment.
Moreover, inmate grievance procedures are not mandated by the
Constitution. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422,1430-1431 (7th
Cir.1996); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72,75 (4th Cir.1994). Thus, the
adequacy of a particular grievance procedure does not rise to the
level of a constitutional tort.
Lacking conduct rising to the level of a constitutional
violation, the plaintiffs are unable to prove every element of
their cause of action. They have, therefore, failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Under such circumstances,
the Court is obliged to dismiss the instant action sua sponte. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate will be entered.

_____________________________
Kevin H. Sharp
Chief District Judge

2