Johnny Smith v. Robert Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-00277-COA
JOHNNY SMITH
APPELLANT
v.
ROBERT JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
1/5/2001
HON. JAMES E. GRAVES, JR.
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOHNNY SMITH (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JANE L. MAPP
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DISMISSED SUIT.
AFFIRMED - 5/13/2003
BEFORE KING, P.J., GRIFFIS, AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Johnny Smith, a Mississippi Department of Corrections inmate, filed suit alleging that prison
officials denied him due process by revoking his good time credits without a judicial hearing. From the
dismissal of his suit, Smith appeals asserting:
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2.
On October 25, 2000, Smith filed a petition with the circuit court seeking judicial relief. Smith
claims that he was denied due process rights because the prison officials revoked his good time credits
without a judicial hearing. The circuit court dismissed the complaint. Smith was granted permission to
appeal in forma pauperis.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
¶3.
Smith is correct in his assertion that Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) does create certain
minimum due process protection prior to revocation of earned time, but he is mistaken as to the minimum
due process requirements. As addressed by the Court in Lewis v. State, 761 So. 2d 922 (Miss. Ct. App.
2000), the MDOC disciplinary procedures afford offenders sufficient due process. Smith fails to show that
the MDOC procedures were not followed.
¶4.
Smith also notes that one of his violations was overturned, but the revoked earned time was not
restored. Smith did not state whether he has exhausted his MDOC administrative remedies. As such, we
do not address this issue.
¶5.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HINDS COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
2
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.
