Summary
This document is a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition in a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleged that prison officials issued and upheld a false disciplinary report and failed to properly process his grievance. Applying the Prison Litigation Reform Act screening standards, the magistrate concluded that the allegations did not state a plausible constitutional violation or trigger a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Accordingly, the complaint is recommended for dismissal without prejudice, which will count as a statutory strike, and a certificate of appealability is denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the false disciplinary allegation states a plausible 42 U.S.C. §1983 constitutional claim
- Whether the alleged due‑process violation is sufficient to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim
- Whether an inmate has a constitutional right to an inmate grievance procedure
Holdings
- The complaint is dismissed because the false disciplinary allegation, without showing retaliatory motive, does not rise to a constitutional violation.
- The due‑process claim fails because the alleged punishment does not constitute a deprivation of a protected liberty interest.
- No constitutional right to an inmate grievance procedure exists.
Key quotations
“The issuance of a false disciplinary, without more, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” (at 1)
“To state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, a prisoner must first demonstrate that he was deprived of life, liberty, or property by government action.” (at 1)
Factual background
Inmate Loyalty D. Dickerson alleged that Corporal Valarie F. Thomas issued a false disciplinary, that Major Jimmy Coleman IV approved it, that Hearing Officer Justine M. Minor convicted him of the false disciplinary, and that Warden Musslewhite failed to process his grievance.
Procedural history
Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint alleging false disciplinary actions and denial of grievance procedures; the district court considered the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Remand instructions
The dismissal shall be considered a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).