Rienholtz v. Campbell

Decision Date28 June 1999
Docket NumberNo. 99-2148-D/V.,99-2148-D/V.
Citation64 F.Supp.2d 721
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
PartiesRichard P. RIENHOLTZ, Plaintiff, v. Donal CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.

Richard P. Rienholtz, Henning, TN, pro se.

ORDER TO COMPLY WITH PLRA ORDER ASSESSING FILING FEE ORDER OF DISMISSAL ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH NOTICE OF APPELLATE FILING FEE AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

DONALD, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Richard P. Rienholtz, Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC) registration number 94415, an inmate at West Tennessee State Prison Site 1 (WTSP)1 in Henning, Tennessee, who was formerly confined at the Northwest Correctional Complex (NWCX) in Tiptonville, Tennessee, has filed this latest complaint2 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Clerk shall record the defendants as Donal Campbell, Wayne Carpenter, John Dennison, James Dukes, Rodger Forrest, Ray Goodgine, Auzzie Harrell, Robert Henry, Alton Hesson, Tommy Mills, Fred Raney, and Shelia Roberts.

II. ASSESSMENT OF FILING FEE

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), all prisoners bringing a civil action must pay the full filing fee of $150 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) merely provides the prisoner the opportunity to make a "downpayment" of a partial filing fee and pay the remainder in installments.

In this case, plaintiff has not properly completed and submitted both an in forma pauperis affidavit and a prison trust fund account statement showing:

a. the average monthly deposits, and

b. the average monthly balance

for the six months prior to submission of the complaint, and

c. the account balance when the complaint was submitted.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), it is ORDERED that the plaintiff cooperate fully with prison officials in carrying out this order. It is ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order the plaintiff properly complete and file both an in forma pauperis affidavit and a trust fund account statement showing the above amounts. It is further ORDERED that the trust fund officer at plaintiff's prison shall calculate a partial initial filing fee equal to twenty percent (20%) of the greater of the average balance in or deposits to the plaintiff's trust fund account for the six months immediately preceding the completion of the affidavit. When the account contains any funds, the trust fund officer shall collect them and pay them directly to the Clerk of Court. If the funds in plaintiff's account are insufficient to pay the full amount of the initial partial filing fee, the prison official is instructed to withdraw all of the funds in the plaintiff's account and forward them to the Clerk of Court. On each occasion that funds are subsequently credited to plaintiff's account the prison official shall immediately withdraw those funds and forward them to the Clerk of Court, until the initial partial filing fee is paid in full.

It is further ORDERED that after the initial partial filing fee is fully paid, the trust fund officer shall withdraw from the plaintiff's account and pay to the Clerk of this Court monthly payments equal to twenty percent (20%) of all deposits credited to plaintiff's account during the preceding month, but only when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the entire $150.00 filing fee is paid.

Each time that the trust fund officer makes a payment to the Court as required by this order, he shall print a copy of the prisoner's account statement showing all activity in the account since the last payment under this order and file it with the Clerk along with the payment.

All payments and account statements shall be sent to:

Clerk, United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 167 N. Main, Room 242, Memphis, TN 38103

and shall clearly identify plaintiff's name and the case number on the first page of this order.

If plaintiff is transferred to a different prison or released, he is ORDERED to notify the Court immediately of his change of address. If still confined he shall provide the officials at the new prison with a copy of this order.

If the plaintiff fails to abide by these or any other requirement of this order, the Court may impose appropriate sanctions, including a monetary fine, without any additional notice or hearing by the Court.

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the prison official in charge of prison trust fund accounts at plaintiff's prison.

The obligation to pay this filing fee shall continue despite the immediate dismissal of this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Clerk shall not issue process or serve any papers in this case.

III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

Plaintiff is serving a six to forty-six year prison sentence in the custody of the TDOC for felony escape, second degree murder, and attempted arson. He sues TDOC Commissioner Donal Campbell, NWCX Warden Fred Raney, NWCX Associate Warden James Dukes, NWCX Classification Coordinator Ray Goodgine, NWCX Counselor Shelia Roberts, NWCX School Principal Auzzie Harrell, NWCX Correctional Officer Rodger Forrest, WTSP Warden Alton Hesson, WTSP Associate Wardens Tommy Mills and Robert Henry, WTSP Fiscal Director Wayne Carpenter, and WTSP Classification Coordinator John Dennison.

This is yet another case involving a TDOC prison inmate who is attempting to abuse the grievance system and his right of access to the courts because he is dissatisfied with administrative decisions that are clearly within the discretion of prison officials. Rienholtz has spent some considerable time working in TDOC prison libraries, and has come to view his job as an inmate law clerk as a liberty interest. While confined at NWCX he learned that the NWCX administration had decided not to place a CD-Rom computerized legal research system in the prison law library, but to assign the equipment to prison staff. Contending that Commissioner Campbell had personally approved the placement of the system in the library and that the library's book collection had been allowed to decline in anticipation of the installation of the computerized system, Rienholtz proceeded to file numerous grievances complaining of the decision and attacking the motives and character of various prison staff who were either involved in the decision or had some relationship to the library and its operations. NWCX staff removed plaintiff from his law library position and transferred him to the Minimum Security Annex at WTSP Site 1. Plaintiff filed grievances regarding the transfer and loss of his job, of course asserting that the transfer and job termination interfered with his right of access to the courts. At WTSP he worked briefly in a manual labor position outside on the brush clearing crew, but then was assigned to a clerical position in the commissary. While working there, he became dissatisfied with the manner in which WTSP staff operating the commissary paid inmates, scheduled inmate work shifts, and determined inmate work assignments. He proceeded to file a series of grievances telling WTSP officials how the commissary should be operated. WTSP staff thereafter conducted a security investigation, during which they confined him to involuntary administrative segregation for ten days and then terminated him from the commissary position. In essence, Hesson and the WTSP administration concluded that plaintiff was trying to run the prison, and they reassigned him to clarify who was in charge.

Plaintiff felt seriously affronted by this and responded with a prolix and rambling thirty-six page complaint to which he attached some sixty-one pages of exhibits, grievance documents, TDOC regulations, correspondence with various NWCX, WTSP, and TDOC officials, and three cassette tapes that he claims memorializes statements at various grievance and classification hearings. He claims the defendants have violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts and deprived him of due process, and he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff has no liberty interest in assignment to a particular prison, to a particular prison job, or in freedom from segregation. In general, an inmate does not have a liberty interest in assignment to a particular institution or to a particular security classification within that institution. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 243, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976); Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir.1992); Beard v. Livesay, 798 F.2d 874, 876 (6th Cir.1986).

In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935

(1974), the United States Supreme Court had identified the procedural requirements prison officials must adopt to satisfy due process when depriving a prisoner of various liberty interests, including deprivation of sentence credits and confinement to segregation. Wolff assumed the existence of a liberty interest requiring due process protection. In Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), the Court limited the Wolff requirements applicable to purely administrative, rather than punitive segregation, but broadened the scope of federal court authority over prison administration by recognizing that the mandatory language of state regulations could create liberty interests protected by due process requirements. Courts were required to consider whether "the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State [or federal government] has created a protected liberty interest." Hewitt, 459 U.S....

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Parks v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • September 29, 2014
    ...filing a lawsuit or grievance and then perpetually claiming retaliation." Antonelli v. Rios, supra at 7, citing Reinholz v. Campbell, 64 F.Supp.2d 721, 733-34 (W.D.Tenn.1999). The manner in which Parks strategically files his retaliation claims suggests that they are simply a preemptive str......
  • Banes v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 17-1003-JDT-cgc
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • August 22, 2018
    ...461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983); Keenan v. Marker, 23 F. App'x 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001); Rienholtz v. Campbell, No. 99-2148-D/V, 64 F. Supp. 2d 721, 730-31 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). Banes also asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1988. However, the complaint does not assert a valid claim u......
  • Eads v. Tennessee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • September 7, 2018
    ...Allegations of termination from a prison job and transfer to a different facility do not meet this standard. Rienholtz v. Campbell, 64 F. Supp. 2d 721, 729 (W.D. Tenn. 1999) (citing Mackey v. Dyke, 111 F.3d 460, 462-63 (6th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff fails to state a federal due process claim i......
  • Miller v. W. Va. Div. of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • March 16, 2017
    ...Thus, an ineffective PREA process, standing alone, does not constitute a violation of any constitutional right. Rineholtz. v. Campbell 64 F.Supp.2d 721, 731 (W.D. Tenn. 1999) ("In a § 1983 action, a federal court considers whether a constitutional right has been infringed, not whether burea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • U.S. District Court: WORK.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • February 1, 2000
    ...v. Campbell, 64 F.Supp.2d 721 (W.D.Tenn. 1999). A prison inmate brought a prose action under [sections] 1983 alleging that termination from his prison law library position, his transfer to another facility, and his termination from a commissary clerical job, resulted in violation of his Fir......
  • U.S. District Court: DUE PROCESS.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • February 1, 2000
    ...v. Campbell, 64 F.Supp.2d 721 (W.D.Tenn. 1999). A prison inmate brought a pro se action under [sections] 1983 alleging that termination from his prison law library position, his transfer to another facility, and his termination from a commissary clerical job, resulted in violation of his Fi......
  • U.S. District Court: LAW LIBRARY.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • February 1, 2000
    ...v. Campbell 64 F.Supp.2d 721 (W.D.Tenn. 1999). A prison inmate brought a pro so action under [section] 1983 alleging that termination from his prison law library position, his transfer to another facility, and his termination from a commissary clerical job, resulted in violation of his Firs......
  • U.S. District Court: TERMINATION.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 2000, February 2000
    • February 1, 2000
    ...v. Campbell, 64 F.Supp.2d 721 (W.D.Tenn. 1999). A prison inmate brought a pro se action under [sections] 1983 alleging that termination from his prison law library position, his transfer to another facility, and his termination from a commissary clerical job, resulted in violation of his Fi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT