Harrison v. Seay, 94-2257-M1-A.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 94-2257-M1-A.,94-2257-M1-A.
• Parties: James Ray HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. Larry W. SEAY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

856 F. Supp. 1275

James Ray HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. Larry W. SEAY, et al., Defendants.

No. 94-2257-M1-A.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.

June 24, 1994.

James Ray Harrison, pro se.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

McCALLA, District Judge.

Plaintiff, James Ray Harrison, an inmate at Lake County Regional Correctional Facility (LCRCF) in Tiptonville, Tennessee, has filed another complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.¹

In this action, Harrison again sues Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) Commissioner Christine Bradley, WTHSF warden Billy Compton, WTHSF food service manager Larry Seay, WTHSF librarian Elmo Len Holmes, and WTHSF sergeant Michael Stuart. To summarize briefly the allegations of the nine-page complaint and thirty-plus pages of attachments, Harrison is again attempting to use this court's authority to coerce the defendants into granting him superior privileges as a prison jailhouse lawyer. On November 25, 1993, Harrison, in his guise as a writ-writer, wrote a letter to Seay, demanding that Seay not dismiss another inmate from a food services job, making other demands, and setting various conditions for the handling of the inmate's grievance. Harrison closed his letter by stating, "Any further attempt on your part to dismiss Mr. Mullikin will result in more serious litigation." Seay responded on November 30, 1993, by charging Harrison with the disciplinary offense of threatening an employee. Holmes at first agreed, then declined, on advice of counsel, to represent Harrison at the disciplinary hearing. With Sergeant Stuart acting as chairman, the disciplinary board conducted a hearing on February 22, 1994. Seay testified that he considered the entire letter threatening because it implied that Seay should agree to the demands therein or Harrison would harm him. "I took it as you do as I say or else." The board imposed five days punitive segregation, and Compton and Bradley denied plaintiffs appeals.

Plaintiff now sues, alleging that Holmes's refusal to represent him deprived him of his right to defend himself at the disciplinary hearing, that the disciplinary conviction was not supported by the evidence, that the written findings in the disciplinary report were inadequate, that Seay acted in retaliation for plaintiffs exercise of his First Amendment right of petitioning the courts, that Stuart refused to allow him to call any witnesses, that the defendants disregarded various TDOC regulations, and that his appeal was denied despite due process violations. Plaintiff attached the disciplinary records, including the offending letter that the board considered, the records of his appeal, and copies of internal Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC) memoranda regarding the proper conduct of prison disciplinary hearings. Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in punitive damages.

Dealing first with plaintiff's claim that he was denied due process because the disciplinary board's findings were not supported by the evidence and because the written description was inadequate, plaintiff's claim is meritless.

Plaintiffs claim of insufficient evidence is also without basis. Inmates enjoy a narrow set of due process rights when prison authorities institute disciplinary proceedings. See Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 106 S.Ct. 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985) (disciplinary board members protected by qualified immunity); Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773-75, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (disciplinary findings satisfy due process if supported by any evidence, however meager); Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 495-99, 105 S.Ct. 2192, 2195-97, 85 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985) (disciplinary board need not make contemporaneous record of reasons live witnesses for inmate not allowed); Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319-323, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1558-60, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976) (disciplinary board may draw adverse inference from inmate's silence; inmate has no right to cross-examination); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2978-82, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (defining scope of due process application to prison disciplinary hearings); Wolfel v. Morris, 972 F.2d 712 (6th Cir.1992); Hensley v. Wilson, 850 F.2d 269 (6th Cir.1988); Hudson v. Edmonson, 848 F.2d 682 (6th Cir.1988); Turney v. Scroggy, 831 F.2d 135 (6th Cir.1987).

In general,

"as long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is within the sentence imposed upon him and is not otherwise violative of the Constitution, the Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an inmate's treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight."

Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 2547, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976). Thus there is no federal constitutional right to be held in a prison system's general population, or in a particular part of a prison. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468-69, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869-70, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 556-57, 94 S.Ct. at 2974-75. Nevertheless, "the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest." Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. at 472, 103 S.Ct. at 871-72.

Tennessee prison regulations have been interpreted to create a liberty interest in inmates not being confined to punitive or administrative segregation without due process protections. Franklin v. Aycock, 795 F.2d 1253, 1260 (6th Cir.1986) (disciplinary segregation); Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287, 1294 (6th Cir.1980). Due process thus requires that a Tennessee prison inmate who is confined to punitive segregation or deprived of sentence credits be provided a disciplinary hearing in compliance with Wolff and Hill.

Although state laws or regulations create any liberty interest that a TDOC inmate enjoys in connection with confinement to disciplinary segregation, the scope of "the procedural due process required before one may be deprived of a liberty interest is governed by federal constitutional law and not state law." Black v. Parke, 4 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir.1993). Procedural requirements alone do not create a substantive liberty interest, and mere violation of such procedures is not a constitutional violation. Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 460-61, 103 S.Ct. at 865-66; Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 508 (6th Cir.1985) (violation of state law does not by itself constitute deprivation of due process). Even if the procedures are phrased in mandatory language, they do not create a substantive liberty interest. Thus plaintiff had no due process right to each procedure set forth in TDOC regulations, but only to those enunciated by Wolff and its progeny.

Plaintiff has no right protecting him from being charged with a disciplinary offense. An inmate's due process right with respect to the filing of a disciplinary report is subsumed within the procedures enunciated in Wolff. If these procedures are followed, the prisoner's due process right is protected, regardless of the truth of the initial report. See, e.g., Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir.1986); Sweeney v. Norris, slip op. at 3, 1988 WL 3478, 1988 U.S.APP. LEXIS 438 (6th Cir. January 19, 1988) (unpublished decision following Freeman). See also Wolfel v. Morris, 972 F.2d 712, 716 (6th Cir.1992) (filing of report did not violate inmate's due process rights because he was acquitted of the charge).

Plaintiffs sufficiency of the evidence claim is meritless. A federal court's review of the quantum of evidence supporting a prison disciplinary board's decision is limited to determining whether some evidence supports the decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S.Ct. at 2773-74. The court is not permitted to re-weigh the evidence presented to the board. Id. at 455, 105 S.Ct. at 2773-74. Prison officials' determinations in disciplinary cases must be made quickly in a highly charged atmosphere, id. at 456, 105 S.Ct. at 2774-75, and the "Constitution does not require evidence that precludes any conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board." Id. at 457, 105 S.Ct. at 2775.

Plaintiff admits that he wrote the letter he was charged with writing. His sufficiency of the evidence claim rests on the contention that the letter threatened no physical harm, but only stated his intention to file a lawsuit against Seay if he did not comply with plaintiff's demands, which plaintiff characterizes as a legitimate pursuit of an administrative grievance.

"The core functions of prison administration are maintaining safety and internal security." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 92, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2263, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). See also Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 415, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 1882, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989) (protecting prison security is central to all other correctional goals); Meadows v. Hopkins, 713 F.2d 206, 209-10 (6th Cir.1983). An inmate-grievance process is the intersection for many complaints with varying flash points and those grievances create numerous overlapping security concerns. Consequently, TDOC has enacted a strict process for filing and hearing inmate grievances. Nothing in the grievance regulations permits an inmate law clerk providing advice to a grievant to step outside that process and write a letter to a prison official demanding a particular resolution of a grievance.

Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's erroneous belief, reflected consistently in his pleadings filed in this district, the right of access to the courts does not guarantee him the right to represent another inmate, nor does it authorize him to act in any representative capacity. See Smith v. Halford, 570 F.Supp. 1187, 1194-95 (D.Kan.1983). In short, he has no right to act like a lawyer, or to attempt to arrogate to himself the role of advocate. Rather, the inmate whom he might be trying to advise may have some liberty interest and a corresponding right to assert that right in court. From this...