Johnson v. Walker, No. 4:2005cv00126 - Document 11 (N.D. Miss. 2005)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 10 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by Judge Glen H. Davidson on 6/30/2005. (dmd, USDC)

Download PDF
Johnson v. Walker Doc. 11 Case 4:05-cv-00126-GHD-EMB Document 11 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION STANLEY JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:05CV126-D-B CAROLYN WALKER, DEFENDANT OPINION This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, files this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He states that he received a Rule Violation Report (RVR) for failing to obey an order of a correctional officer. He appeared before a disciplinary committee, chaired by the defendant, which conducted a hearing on the RVR. Plaintiff was found guilty of the offense and was punished for the violation. Plaintiff states that he was housed in Unit 29-K, but the report prepared by the defendant says Unit 29-L, and contends that this shows he did not commit the offense. He also says that the defendant exhibited unprofessional conduct toward him. He argues that the RVR should be revoked and that he should receive punitive damages. After carefully considering the contents of the pro se complaint and giving it the liberal construction required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this court has come to the following conclusion. Federal courts do not "second-guess" the findings and determinations of prison disciplinary committees. The plaintiff was afforded a disciplinary hearing on the RVR, thus meeting the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The Constitution does not demand "error-free decision making ...." Collins v. King, 743 F.2d 248, 253-54 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting McCrae v. Hankins, 720 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 1983)). Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:05-cv-00126-GHD-EMB Document 11 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 2 of 2 It is clear that whether claims are habeas corpus or civil rights in nature the plaintiff must be deprived of some right secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215, 1216 (5th Cir. 1984)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (1982); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979); and Trussell v. Estelle, 699 F.2d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 1983)). In the event there is no constitutional right, the plaintiff's complaint fails. Irving, 732 F.2d at 1216 (citing Thomas v. Torres, 717 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983)). Since the acts complained of by plaintiff meet the due process requirements, they do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Therefore they must be dismissed as failing to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. A final judgment in accordance with this opinion will be entered. THIS the 30th day of June, 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.