Pichardo v. Kinker
| Decision Date | 31 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-40413,95-40413 |
| Citation | 73 F.3d 612 |
| Parties | Rolando PICHARDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.E. KINKER, M.W. Moore, W. Scott, J.A. Collins, S.O. Woods and S. Buentello, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Rolando Pichardo, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Rolando Pichardo appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissing as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 his claim that his confinement in administrative segregation violates his due process rights. We hold that absent extraordinary circumstances, administrative segregation as such, being an incident to the ordinary life as a prisoner, will never be a ground for a constitutional claim, and therefore affirm.
Pichardo, an inmate at Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"), filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against various TDCJ officials and employees at the Coffield and Hobby Units. Pichardo challenged the determination, made while he was at the Hobby Unit, that he was affiliated with the Texas Syndicate, a prison gang, a determination that resulted in his classification as a gang member and his placement in administrative segregation at the Coffield Unit. The magistrate judge assigned to the matter severed the claims and allegations concerning the initial determination of Pichardo's gang affiliation and transferred those claims to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The magistrate judge conducted a Spears 1 hearing to flesh out the factual allegations concerning Pichardo's claim of a due process violation arising from his continued confinement in administrative segregation. At the hearing, Pichardo testified that he had consistently denied any gang affiliation and that he had received periodic review by the Coffield Unit's classification committee concerning his gang classification. Prison Warden Kinker explained the procedures utilized in classifying an inmate as a gang member, with placement in administrative segregation, and noted that review occurs every ninety days to determine whether the inmate continues as an active member of the gang.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Pichardo's complaint as frivolous, concluding that Pichardo had not shown an abuse of the prison officials' discretion in continuing to classify Pichardo as a gang member; thus, no due process violation had occurred. The district court conducted a de novo review of the record, adopted the magistrate judge's report, and dismissed Pichardo's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915. This timely appeal followed.
Pichardo argues that the TDCJ policies covering an inmate's placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation create a protectable liberty interest. 2 Because this contention lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, we hold that his complaint was properly dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31, 112 S.Ct. 1728,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitsett v. Cannon
...confinement was not a deprivation of liberty when compared to conditions imposed on the general population); Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 612–13 (5th Cir.1996) (under Sandin, absent extraordinary circumstances, administrative segregation does not work a deprivation of liberty); Jones v.......
-
Estrada v. Nehls
...claim" because it "simply does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest." Pichardo v. Kinker , 73 F.3d 612, 612–613 (5th Cir. 1996). In that regard, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff's "discipline in segregated confinement did not present the type......
-
Fraise v. Terhune
...(confinement in administrative segregation for two and one-half years is not "atypical and significant" hardship); Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir.1996)(rejecting as frivolous a claim that classification as gang member and placement in administrative segregation unit deprived ......
-
Patin v. Leblanc
...without more, simply does not constitute adeprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest.'" Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.1995)). Patin has no non-frivolous claim to urge here related to the underlying ......
-
A Felicitous Meme: the Eleventh Circuit Solves the Preiser Puzzle?
...112 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 1997).168. Id. at 819. 169. Id. at 820.170. Id. at 820-21.171. Id. at 821.172. Id.; See also Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612 (5th Cir. 1996) (addressing on the merits an action brought under § 1983 in which prisoner alleged retention in administrative segregation viol......