Randall Edward Fletcher v. Rick Whitten, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed without prejudice a pro se state prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court rejected or deemed waived the plaintiff’s objections concerning due process, equal protection, First Amendment, and Eighth Amendment claims, and concluded that the First Amendment telephone-privileges claim was moot. The court also dismissed without prejudice related claims involving collective punishment and alleged violations of evidentiary rules.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to state a procedural due process claim because he did not identify a protected liberty interest. The possibility that changes in classification or participation records might affect future discretionary parole consideration was too speculative to create a protected liberty interest.
2. Plaintiff failed to state an Equal Protection claim because he did not show that he was a member of a class of individuals treated differently, and he waived review by failing to specifically object to the magistrate judge's findings.
3. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim concerning the telephone restriction was moot because the sanction had already been completed, and the capable-of-repetition exception did not apply.
4. The Eighth Amendment claim was subject to dismissal because Plaintiff did not specifically object to the magistrate judge's conclusion that the discipline imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
5. Alleged violations of Oklahoma Department of Corrections policies did not constitute standalone § 1983 claims, and Plaintiff's collective-punishment and rules-of-evidence allegations were dismissed without prejudice because they were intertwined with the dismissed constitutional claims and were not supported by specific legal arguments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff identified a protected liberty interest sufficient to support a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on disciplinary procedures, security-classification changes, earned-credit or participation records, and telephone restrictions.
2. Whether Plaintiff stated an Equal Protection claim by alleging differential treatment based on membership in a protected or otherwise cognizable class.
3. Whether Plaintiff's First Amendment claim concerning a completed restriction on telephone privileges remained justiciable under the capable-of-repetition exception to mootness.
4. Whether the discipline imposed on Plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim.
5. Whether alleged violations of Oklahoma Department of Corrections policies, collective punishment, and rules of evidence stated independent claims warranting relief.

Disposition

dismissed