Williams-Ogletree v. Boyle et al, No. 4:2016cv03501 - Document 5 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismissing with prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams-Ogletree v. Boyle et al Doc. 5 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED December 06, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LESLIE WILLIAMS-OGLETREE, BOP #44196-424, § § § § § § § § § § § § Petitioner, v. MARNE BOYLE, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, Texas, Respondent. David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-3501 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The petitioner, Leslie Williams-Ogletree, is presently incarcerated in the United States Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas. Williams-Ogletree has filed Petition of Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Petition") 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1), challenging the result of a prison disciplinary conviction. an In Forma Pauperis Affidavit § a She has also filed (Docket Entry No. leave to proceed without prepayment of considering all of the pleadings, 2) requesting the filing fee. After the court concludes that this case should be dismissed for the reasons explained below. I. On May 5, report" 2016, Background Williams-Ogletree was issued an "incident charging her with violating prison rules by displaying Dockets.Justia.com "Insolence to Staff." 1 On May 10, 2016, the charges were amended to "Refusing to obey a direct order. " 2 The charges stemmed from an incident in which Williams-Ogletree reportedly refused to wear her inmate identification card on a lanyard around her neck as required by prison rules. 3 On May 17, 2016, Williams-Ogletree was found guilty following a hearing by the Unit Discipline Committee. 4 punishment, As Williams-Ogletree lost visitation privileges for 14 days. 5 Williams-Ogletree contends that she was "wrongfully sanctioned" in violation of the right to due process because her disciplinary hearing was not held in a timely manner in compliance with prison procedures. 6 Williams-Ogletree also contends that the charges against her were improper because the policy requiring inmate identification cards to be worn on a lanyard does not actually state that an inmate must wear the lanyard around her neck. 7 Arguing further that lanyards worn around the neck are unsafe, Williams-Ogletree maintains that she was not required to 1 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3. 2 Id. 3 Id. at 2-3. 4 Id. at 3 . 5 Id. 6 Id. at 6 . 7 Id. at 4-5. -2- obey a direct order to wear one. 8 Thus, she seeks relief from her prison disciplinary conviction under 28 § u.s.c. § 2241 and 42 u.s.c. 1983. II. Discussion As an initial matter, Williams-Ogletree does not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. the deprivation of a § 1983, which provides a remedy only for constitutional right by a someone acting under color of state law. F. App'x 781, 783 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, state actor or See Adams v. Schmidt, 612 2015) Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 102 S. Ct. 2744, 2753 (citing Lugar v. (1982)). Because this case involves a federal prisoner challenging a disciplinary proceeding that occurred in a federal prison facility, not apply. 1982) See Broadway v. (holding that federal Block, 694 F.2d 979, officials, acting 1983 does § 981 (5th Cir. under color of federal law rather than state law, "are not subject to suit under § 1983"). To the extent that a disciplinary conviction implicates the administration or execution of a prison sentence, a federal prisoner's challenge to a disciplinary action is within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Carmona v. Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001) United States Bureau of ("[A]ppellant's petition to expunge the Bureau's disciplinary sanctions from his record 8 Id. at 5. -3- is properly brought via an application for a writ under § 2241."). To prevail under 2241, a petitioner must demonstrate § that a constitutional violation has occurred. 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995) Kyle, See Orellana v. ('"[N]either habeas nor civil rights relief can be had absent the allegation by a plaintiff that he or she has been deprived of some right secured to him or her by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States.'") (quoting Hilliard v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 1192 (5th Cir. 1985)). Ogletree cannot 759 F.2d 1190, For the reasons explained below, Williams- demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred in connection with the disciplinary conviction at issue in this case. An inmate's rights in the prison disciplinary setting are governed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2963, 2974-75 (1974). See Wolff v. McDonnell, 94 S. Ct. Prisoners charged with institutional rules violations are entitled to rights under the Due Process Clause only when the disciplinary action may result in a sanction that will infringe upon a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2302 (1995). See In that context, a prisoner's liberty interests are "generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary -4- incidents of prison life." Id. at 2300 (internal citations omitted) . The Incident Report provided by Williams-Ogletree confirms that the only punishment imposed as the result of the challenged disciplinary proceeding was a loss of visitation privileges for 14 days, 2016. 9 from May 17 through May 31, held that the loss of privileges are The Fifth Circuit has "merely changes in the conditions of [an inmate's] confinement" and do not implicate due process concerns. 1997). Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. Restrictions on visitation privileges, in particular, do not implicate a constitutionally protected liberty interest because convicted prisoners have no constitutional right to visitation. Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999). restrictions privileges placed "provide constitutional upon no rights." or loss basis for Palmisano of a an inmate's claim v. of Bureau F. App'x 646, 648 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2007) Accordingly, the of visitation denial Prisons, of 258 (citations omitted). Williams-Ogletree also alleges that the Incident Report has also adversely affected her custodial classification, making her ineligible for other privileges, such as "social and/or emergency furloughs, as service. " 10 As a general matter, however, a prison inmate has no 9 well as special projects, including community Incident Report #2847402, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 14. 10 Peti tion, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 6. -5- protected liberty interest in his or her custodial classification. See Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 Meachum v. Fano, not allege facts classification, atypical 96 S. Ct. 2532 showing (5th Cir. 1988) (1976)). that the Williams-Ogletree does change in with its attendant restrictions, and significant hardship (citing in relation her custodial constitutes an to the ordinary incidents of prison life or that a protected liberty interest is otherwise implicated by the loss of privileges alleged. Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 562-63 (5th Cir. 2008) See ("Only when a prisoner demonstrates 'extraordinary circumstances' may he maintain a due process challenge to a classification."); see also, 2384, 2394-95 (2005) ~~ (concluding change in his custodial Wilkinson v. Austin, 125 S. Ct. that inmates had a liberty interest in avoiding assignment to a supermax facility) . Because the punishment imposed does constitutionally protected liberty interest, due process claims have no merit. not implicate Williams-Ogletree's Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Petition of Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 USC § 2241 and 42 USC § 1983 filed by Leslie Williams-Ogletree (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 2. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is GRANTED. -6- a The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 6th day of December, 2016. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
