Michael Mejia v. Sterling Adams, et al.

Summary

The court granted Michael Mejia’s motion for leave to amend but dismissed his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice following merit review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that refusing to assist a prison investigation did not constitute protected First Amendment activity and that the alleged segregation and disciplinary proceedings did not implicate a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found further amendment would be futile and directed entry of judgment.

Holdings

1. Refusing to assist in the investigation of a prison security violation is not protected speech, and a prisoner may be compelled to disclose information during an internal investigation so long as the prisoner is not punished for refusing to make self-incriminating statements without immunity. Mejia therefore failed to state a plausible First Amendment claim.
2. Mejia failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because the alleged four-day overage in segregation, without allegations that the conditions were significantly and atypically harsh compared with administrative or protective custody, did not establish deprivation of a protected liberty interest.
3. Further amendment was futile because Mejia had already been allowed to amend, clearly stated his allegations, and still failed to state a claim; the action was therefore dismissed with prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mejia stated a First Amendment claim based on being threatened with or charged with discipline after refusing to assist a prison investigation or act as an informant.
2. Whether Mejia stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on alleged errors in the investigative and disciplinary reports, the disciplinary hearing, and his continued segregation.
3. Whether further amendment should be permitted after the amended complaint failed to state a claim.

Disposition

dismissed