Michael D. Jackson v. Jeremiah Fitz, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviews Michael D. Jackson’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning an alleged due process violation in a prison disciplinary proceeding. The court dismisses the claim and action with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, finding that the omission of a potential witness from the disciplinary offense report did not implicate a protected liberty interest or deny constitutionally required process.

Holdings

1. The omission did not state a due process claim because Jackson did not plausibly allege that the omission deprived him of the ability to identify or call Watkins as a witness, caused an atypical and significant hardship, or inevitably affected the duration of his sentence.
2. An alleged violation of a prison policy or procedure, without more, does not state an actionable constitutional claim under § 1983.
3. Jackson failed to state a due process claim because he did not allege that he was denied an impartial tribunal, written notice, an opportunity to call witnesses or present documentary evidence, assistance where required, or a written statement of the evidence and reasons for discipline.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the omission of Officer Watkins from the witness section of a disciplinary offense report stated a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim.
2. Whether an alleged violation of Virginia Department of Corrections policy or procedure is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether Jackson plausibly alleged deprivation of a protected liberty interest or any of the minimum procedural protections required for prison disciplinary proceedings.

Disposition

dismissed