Jackson v. Sweat et al

Filing 11

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 5 Report and Recommendations. This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2). Signed by District Judge J. Campbell Barker on 5/9/2024. (ndc)

No. 6:24-cv-00016
Louis Jackson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mable Sweat et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Louis Jackson, a prisoner of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3.
On January 22, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and
1915(e)(2). Doc. 5. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 7.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff alleges that defendants forged his name on a sign-in
sheet for a urinalysis drug test, which resulted in a false conviction
at a prison disciplinary hearing. Doc. 1 at 3–4. Plaintiff filed a grievance with TDCJ and his disciplinary conviction was overturned
prior to filing this lawsuit. Id. at 4–5.
As the magistrate judge observed, the Fifth Circuit has held that
there is no due process violation when a falsely accused prisoner “is
given an adequate state procedural remedy to challenge the accusations.” Doc. 5 at 5; Grant v. Thomas, 37 F.3d 632, 1994 WL 558835
(5th Cir. Sept. 23, 1994). Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to a
state a claim for due process violation.

The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff did not suffer any
atypical and significant hardship as required to trigger a right to due
process and that he has no constitutional right to have the defendants
prosecuted or punished for any criminal acts. Doc. 5 at 4.
Plaintiff’s objection to the report does not refute those findings.
He confirms that his disciplinary conviction was overturned. Doc. 7
at 3. So any sentence credits that had been revoked were presumably
restored. See id. He now asserts that this incident is a “mark on [his]
rehabilitation file,” but he does not allege any facts establishing any
actual injury in connection with that “mark” in light of the administrative reversal of his conviction. Id. at 4. And for the reasons the
magistrate judge explained, any short time plaintiff spent subjected
to other restrictions—including his newly-alleged forty-five days of
cell restriction—do not rise to the level required to state a claim for
a due process violation. Doc. 5 at 4.
Plaintiff reiterates that defendants’ alleged actions were criminal. But for the reasons the magistrate judge explained, that alone
does not state a viable claim for relief under Section 1983. Doc. 5 at
4. Plaintiff also complains that defendants violated department
codes of conduct, but violation of prison policy does not amount to
a constitutional violation. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1251
(5th Cir. 1989). (“A state’s failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not establish a violation of due process, because ‘constitutional minima may nevertheless have been met.’”). Finally, plaintiff alleges a conspiracy between the defendants, but defendants cannot be liable for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of
the plaintiff’s civil rights. See Jackson v. City of Hearne, Texas, 959
F.3d 194, 206 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that a defendant “cannot be
held liable for participation in a conspiracy that failed to violate any
of the plaintiff’s rights”).
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s
objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommendation.
This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

-2-

So ordered by the court on May 9, 2024.

J. C AM PB EL L B A RK ER
United States District Judge

-3-