Rodgers v. Singletary, 97-4422

Citation142 F.3d 1252
Decision Date02 June 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-4422,97-4422
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1446 Charles Edward RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections; Marta Villacorta, Superintendent, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Charlie Edward Rodgers, Perry, FL, pro se.

Charles M. Fahlbusch, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before ANDERSON, COX and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Edward Rodgers appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim in his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rodgers, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint requesting monetary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief for alleged constitutional deprivations he suffered stemming from events occurring at the South Florida Reception Center in 1993. The complaint alleges that Rodgers requested a sanitary dining table, and that in response Defendant Gonzalez, a corrections officer, filed a false disciplinary report against Rodgers. Rodgers was placed in "administrative confinement" pending resolution of the disciplinary report. The disciplinary report was subsequently dismissed in accordance with prison regulations because the case was not heard within seven days, but Rodgers remained in administrative confinement because he had pending criminal charges arising from his altercation with Gonzalez. Rodgers remained for approximately two months pending resolution of the criminal charges; he alleges that his confinement was in violation of his due process rights. Rodgers also alleges that Defendants Singletary and Villacorta denied him due process in connection with the alleged wrongful confinement by failing to promptly release him after he had given them notice of his situation through the grievance procedure.

With respect to Rodgers' due process claim, the district court dismissed the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot and dismissed the damages action against Gonzalez pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim. The district court also granted summary judgment for Singletary and Villacorta on the damages claim, concluding that Rodgers had failed to show the deprivation of a protected liberty interest as required by Sandin v. Conner. 1 Rodgers appeals the district court's ruling. He argues that the district court erred in relying on Sandin in dismissing his claim of an unconstitutional administrative confinement against Singletary and Villacorta, because, he argues, Sandin was decided two years after the incident, and the law at the time of the incident must govern. 2

This court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, with all evidence and reasonable factual inferences viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1581 (11th Cir.1995). Rodgers cites Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Board of Education, 95 F.3d 1036, 1043 n. 13 (11th Cir.1996) for the proposition that we should apply the law as it existed at the time of the incident, and therefore that Sandin is inapplicable to his case. Jenkins, however, was a qualified immunity case. The footnote that Rodgers cites merely expresses the well-established proposition that in considering a qualified immunity defense, a reviewing court should refer to the law as it existed at the time of the conduct at issue in analyzing whether a defendant should have known that he was violating a clearly established right. Thus, Jenkins is inapplicable here.

The general rule is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • Magwood v. Beem
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • January 27, 2015
    ...*1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2013). Ordinarily, placement in confinement alone is not sufficient to state a due process claim, see Rodgers v. Singletary, 142 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11 th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (finding that an inmate was not deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest when......
  • Enriquez v. Kearney
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • February 26, 2010
    ...retention on RR status for 24 days was a sufficiently short period that it would not implicate due process. Cf. Rodgers v. Singletary, 142 F.3d 1252, 1252-53 (11 Cir.1998), (holding that where an inmate was assigned to Administrative Confinement pending resolution of a disciplinary report, ......
  • Austin v. Hopper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • August 10, 1998
    ...Williams had received the procedural due process protection to which he was entitled. Id. at 375-76. More recently, in Rodgers v. Singletary, 142 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir.1998), the court summarized the holding in Sandin as "[An] inmate can only claim a due process violation if he can show depri......
  • Whitsett v. Cannon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • September 30, 2015
    ...a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 485–87, 115 S.Ct. at 2301–02 (thirty days); Rodgers v. Singletary, 142 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir.1998) (two months). Also, a transfer to a more restrictive prison with less rehabilitative programs does not typically implic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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