Jones v. Roach, No. 4:2005cv00095 - Document 10 (N.D. Miss. 2005)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 9 Order. Signed by Judge Glen H. Davidson on 4/29/05. (jta, USDC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Roach Doc. 10 Case 4:05-cv-00095-GHD-SAA Document 10 Filed 04/29/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION JAMES ALBERT JONES PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:05CV95-D-A LATISHA ROACH, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of James Albert Jones, challenging the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed this lawsuit. The plaintiff complains that the Mississippi Department of Corrections is not interpreting its new Objective Classification System policy correctly and has thus placed him in the wrong custody classification. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case must be dismissed. Discussion Inmates have neither a protectable property or liberty interest to any particular housing assignment or custodial classification, either under the United States Constitution or under Mississippi law. Hewitt v. Helms, 450 U.S. 460, 468 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995); Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992); McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248, 1250 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 47-5-99 to -103 (1993). Prisoner classification is a matter squarely within the broad discretion of prison officials, free from judicial intervention except in extreme circumstances. McCord, 910 F.2d at 1250 (citations omitted); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). The plaintiff s dissatisfaction Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:05-cv-00095-GHD-SAA Document 10 Filed 04/29/2005 Page 2 of 2 with his current classification does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. As such, the instant case shall be dismissed for failure to state claim upon which relief could be granted. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today. SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of April, 2005. /s/ Glen H. Davidson CHIEF JUDGE -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.
