Boone v. Epps et al, No. 4:2006cv00018 - Document 11 (N.D. Miss. 2006)
Court Description: OPINION re 10 Final Judgment dismissing with prejudice. Signed by Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr. on 2/24/06. (pbs, USDC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Boone v. Epps et al Doc. 11 Case 4:06-cv-00018-WAP-EMB Document 11 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION L.G. BOONE, PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:06CV18-P-B CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL, DEFENDANTS OPINION This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Delta Correctional Facility, files this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He states that he received a Rule Violation Report (RVR) for allegedly engaging in or encouraging a group demonstration. He appeared before a disciplinary committee which conducted a hearing on the RVR, was found guilty of the offense, and was punished for the violation. Plaintiff contends that he was not guilty of the charge, that there were numerous administrative errors throughout the RVR process, that the hearing was unfair and not conducted in accordance with Mississippi Department of Corrections policy and procedure, and that he should not have been punished. 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 4:06-cv-00018-WAP-EMB Document 11 Filed 02/24/2006 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 24th day of February, 2006. /s/ W. Allen Pepper, Jr. W. ALLEN PEPPER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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.
