Snodgrass v. Gilbert et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief United States District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 3/17/2017. (tvt)

step-down procedures available to SLS inmates address and alleviate the isolating conditions and
indefiniteness identified in Wilkinson and Incumaa as distinguishing factors of “atypical and
significant” hardships in a long-term segregation scheme.
Furthermore, Snodgrass’ submissions do not indicate that his position on the SM pathway
has any inevitable effect on the length of his confinement so as to trigger a constitutionally
protected liberty interest. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487. Nothing in the SLS policies before the court
indicates that assignment to this status terminates an inmate’s eligibility to earn good conduct
time. Snodgrass’ submissions indicate that he lost his ability to earn good conduct time in
October 2015, based on his own disciplinary record, not merely because his classification status
changed from SM-SL6 back to SLS and SM-0 status.
For the reasons stated, the court finds that Snodgrass has failed to present facts showing
that he has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding classification to SLS or
assignment or reassignment to a particular privilege level under OP 830.A. Therefore, he also
has no actionable claim under § 1983 that any particular procedural protection is constitutionally
required during the OP 830.A classification assignment and review proceedings.16 Sandin, 515
U.S. at 486-87.
As in the context of his disciplinary proceedings, Snodgrass also has no claim under
§ 1983 that any of the defendants have omitted, misconstrued, or misapplied VDOC
classification procedures or that procedures during pathway or step assignments and reviews are
inconsistent with other VDOC policies. These alleged violations of state procedural regulations
do not present a federal due process issue, and are, therefore, not actionable under § 1983.
Riccio, 907 F.2d at 1469.
16

In any event, even if Snodgrass could show that SLS and SM pathway conditions are atypical, the court
concludes that the multi-level formal and informal status reviews provided regularly to Snodgrass substantially
mirror the procedures found to be constitutionally adequate in Wilkinson. 545 U.S. at 224-29.

27