Roberts v. Champion, No. 99-CV-842-P (J).

• Decision Date: 27 March 2003
• Docket Number: No. 99-CV-842-P (J).
• Citation: 255 F.Supp.2d 1272
• Parties: Leonard Renal ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. Ron CHAMPION; James Saffle; and Ron Colliver, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

Page 1272

255 F.Supp.2d 1272

Leonard Renal ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. Ron CHAMPION; James Saffle; and Ron Colliver, Defendants.

No. 99-CV-842-P (J).

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.

March 27, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Leonard Renal Roberts, SCC-Lexington, Lexington, Pro se.

Linda Kathryn Soper, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, for Ron Champion, Warden, James Saffle, Ron Colliver, Case Manager Supervisor, defendants.

ORDER

PAYNE, District Judge.

The Court has for consideration the Report and Recommendation (the "Report") of the U.S. Magistrate Judge entered on February 20, 2003 (Docket # 36), in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The Magistrate Judge recommends that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Defendants' motion to dismiss (# 12-1) be granted. On March 19, 2003, after receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed his objections to the Report (# 39). Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See #3.

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge addresses each of Plaintiffs fourteen (14) claims and Defendants' response to the claims. After thorough analysis of each claim, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of all claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the matter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having done so, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge's determinations. The Court concludes that no purpose would be served by repeating those determinations or by presenting any additional analysis here as to those determinations, with the exception of one claim addressed by Plaintiff in his objection.

In his objection to the Report, Plaintiff states an articulated objection only to the recommendation concerning his claims arising from his "bogus & malice" misconduct for Menacing Staff. As he did in his complaint, Plaintiff continues to allege due process violations and to challenge the validity of evidence presented during disciplinary proceedings. However, as correctly determined by the Magistrate Judge, the Supreme Court has made clear that "[A] state prisoner's claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if `a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,' unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated." Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). This rule of law applies not only when the prisoner challenges his judgment as a substantive matter but also when he challenges misconducts entered as a result of prison disciplinary infractions. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584. Having reviewed the record in this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs request for damages resulting from his prison disciplinary proceedings, must be dismissed based on Heck. Therefore, the Magistrate's recommendation that Plaintiffs claim be dismissed shall be adopted over Plaintiffs objection.

Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiffs request for expungement of the misconduct from his prison record is not appropriate in this § 1983 civil rights action. That request must be presented in a habeas corpus action after exhausting state remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (holding that "when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus"). The Court concludes that the Magistrate's recommendation that Plaintiffs claim be dismissed shall be adopted over Plaintiffs objection.

Therefore, after reviewing Plaintiffs objections to the Report and the facts of this case, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court finds Plaintiffs objections lack merit and concludes that the Report should be adopted and affirmed in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted.

The Court further finds an additional basis for dismissal is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As stated above, Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("PLRA"), a district court may dismiss an action filed in forma pauperis "at any time" if the court determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and this action must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This dismissal shall count as Plaintiffs first "prior occasion" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).¹

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs motion to file a supplemental complaint (Docket # 31) should be denied. Plaintiff filed his motion to amend or supplement almost two (2) years after Defendants filed the motion to dismiss, or alternative motion for summary judgment considered by is the Magistrate Judge in the Report. After reviewing the three (3) supplemental asserted by Plaintiff in his "Supplemental Complaint and Brief," the Court finds that to allow Plaintiff to proceed on the claims would be futile. If the proffered amendments fail to cure the deficiencies of the original complaint or if the newly asserted claims would be futile, denial of a motion to amend is appropriate. See Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 906 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Grossman v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d 1112, 1126 (10th Cir.1997)). Therefore, Plaintiffs "motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint" shall be denied.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY OR DERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket # 36) adopted and affirmed,

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (# 12-1) is granted and the corngrounds plaint (# 1) is dismissed,

3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (# 12-2) is declared moot.

4. Plaintiffs "motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint" (Docket # 31) is denied.

5. The Clerk is directed to flag this dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as Plaintiffs first "prior occasion" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

6. This Order is a final order terminating this action.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................  1278
                 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ..............................................  1280
                     A. MOTION TO DISMISS ............................................  1280
                     B. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ..................................  1281
                     C. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ............  1281
                III. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
                DISMISS/MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .............................  1282
                     1. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF HIS
                MISCONDUCT CONVICTION AND RESTORATION OF CREDITS
                REVOKED [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION 1] ..........................  1282
                     2. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PLAINTIFF'S DISCIPLINARY
                PROCEEDINGS [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION I] ......................  1282
                        (a) UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN HECK V
                HUMPHREY AND EDWARDS V. BALISOK, THIS CIVIL
                RIGHTS CHALLENGE MUST BE DISMISSED .......................  1283
                        (b) THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS DID NOT VIOLATE
                PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ........................  1284
                     3. MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS [DEFENDANTS'
                PROPOSITION III] .............................................  1285
                        (a) DEFENDANTS AFFORDED PLAINTIFF MEANINGFUL
                ACCESS TO THE COURTS .........................................  1285
                

                (b) IF ANY DEPRIVATION OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF HAS
                FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HINDERED HIS
                ABILITY TO PURSUE HIS LEGAL CLAIMS .......................  1286
                     4. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OPENING PLAINTIFF'S MAIL
                [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION IV] .................................  1287
                     5. INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO FREELY PRACTICE RELIGION
                [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION V] ..................................  1288
                        (a) THE INABILITY TO ATTEND JUMA'AH SERVICES AT A
                CERTAIN TIME DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF'S FREE
                EXERCISE OF HIS RELIGION .................................  1288
                        (b) PLAINTIFF HAS OFFERED NO PROOF THAT THE OSP'S
                POLICY ON RELIGION IS NOT RELIGION-NEUTRAL ...............  1289
                     6. EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION CLAIM [DEFENDANTS'
                PROPOSITION VI] ..............................................  1290
                     7. PRISON CONDITIONS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
                [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION VII] ................................  1291
                     8. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
                PROPERTY [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION VIII] ......................  1292
                        (a) PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE
                ADEQUATE POST-DEPRIVATION REMEDIES ARE
                AVAILABLE ................................................  1293
                        (b) ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A
                CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
                BECAUSE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A
                CONSTITUTIONAL TORT ......................................  1293
                     9. RETALIATION AGAINST PLAINTTIFF FOR EXERCISING A
                CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION IX] ................  1293
                     10. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS [DEFENDANT'S
                PROPOSITION X] ..............................................  1294
                     11. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRING PLAINTIFF'S COUNT X
                CLAIMS [DEFENDANTS' PROPOSITION XI] .........................  1295
                     12. DEFENDANTS' QUALIFIED IMMUNITY [DEFENDANTS'
                PROPOSITION XII] ............................................  1296
                     13. DEFENDANTS' ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY FROM A
                SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR ACTIONS IN

...