Williams v. Manternach, C 01-0036-MWB.
| Decision Date | 15 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. C 01-0036-MWB.,C 01-0036-MWB. |
| Citation | 192 F.Supp.2d 980 |
| Parties | Robert Anthony WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Jerry MANTERNACH, William Soupene, Steve Hebron, and Charles Okoye, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Robert Anthony Williams, pro se.
Layne M. Lindebak, Assist. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, IA, for defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................982
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .................................................984
A. Standard Of Review ..........................................984
B. Williams's Objections .......................................984
C. Claims Arising From Disciplinary Reports ....................985
1. "Due process" claims .....................................985
2. "Retaliation" and "conspiracy" claims ....................986
a. Construction of the Complaint .........................986
b. Analysis of "retaliation" and "conspiracy" claims......987
D. Claims Arising From "Lifer" Status ..........................988
1. Construction of the claims ...............................990
2. Sufficiency of the "equal protection" claims..............990
E. Appointment Of Counsel ......................................992
III. CONCLUSION ....................................................992
This action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Robert Anthony Williams, an inmate of the Anamosa State Penitentiary, comes before the court on the December 27, 2001, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss on the defendants' April 20, 2001, motion to dismiss. Judge Zoss recommended dismissal of this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After an extension of time to do so, plaintiff Williams filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on January 22, 2002.
Williams, who is serving a life term at the Anamosa State Penitentiary, filed his pro se Complaint in this action on March 12, 2001, alleging various claims arising from two prison disciplinary reports concerning misuse of computers. The first disciplinary report followed the discovery on February 25, 1999, of purportedly unauthorized files on a floppy disk in a computer Williams used in his prison job. The second disciplinary report followed an incident on October 7, 2000, when Williams purportedly printed legal work for another inmate on the computer at Williams's work station in the prison hobby center. Williams alleges that those disciplinary reports resulted in disciplinary detention, loss of his "level V status," and loss of his prison job, although Williams contends that, had proper procedures been followed, neither incident would even have resulted in a disciplinary report or finding of a rules violation.
In an Initial Review Order, Judge Zoss characterized Williams's Complaint as challenging only "the legality of his disciplinary report conviction regarding an incident that took place on February 25, 1999," and seeking "compensatory and punitive damages, restoration of Level 5 status, and return to his prison job." March 22, 2001, Initial Review Order at 1-2. However, in his Report and Recommendation on the defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Zoss characterized Williams's Complaint as asserting the following claims:
Williams argues the defendants' failure to inform him that he was under investigation, and that a disciplinary report was being considered, violated prison disciplinary procedures and policies, and thus, violated his due process rights. Further, Williams alleges the defendants conspired to evade investigatory procedures for the purpose of violating his rights and covering up improper procedures by a new correctional officer.
Lastly, Williams contends the actions of the defendants in establishing and implementing "policies and procedures that assure only so many lifers are on all employment cites [sic] as well as quota(s) in the levels one can earn" violate his right, as a lifer, to "equal protection and equal privileges in connection with quotas in employment and movement through the level system."
December 27, 2001, Report and Recommendation at 5. Although there is some uncertainty about what claims Williams is asserting, the relief he seeks is specifically stated in his Complaint to consist of compensatory and punitive damages, restoration of his level status, and reinstatement in one or the other of his prison jobs. See Complaint at VI.
On April 20, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss Williams's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. More specifically, the defendants' motion and supporting brief asserted the untimeliness of claims based on events in February and March of 1999; the applicability of the requirement, from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), that Williams secure the invalidation of the prison discipline before he asserts a § 1983 claim, which Williams had not done; and Williams's failure to allege a protected liberty interest under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). The defendants did not address any equal protection claim in their motion to dismiss, instead moving to dismiss only the due process claim identified in the Initial Review Order.
In response to the defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Zoss recommended that Williams's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Judge Zoss concluded that Williams had not pleaded any protected liberty interest, to which due process could attach, because, under the standard established in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), Williams had not suffered any deprivation that was "atypical and significant," in the context of his life sentence, in his disciplinary detention, the loss of his level status, or the loss of his prison job. Judge Zoss concluded further that Williams could not state a due process claim based solely on the alleged failure of prison officials to follow state mandated procedures for investigating and processing the disciplinary charges, because due process protection does not extend to the procedures themselves, but only to the nature of Williams's confinement. Despite the absence of any challenge on the part of the defendants to Williams's equal protection claim, Judge Zoss also concluded that Williams had failed to state an equal protection claim, because he had alleged neither factual support establishing that he is "similarly situated" to any other inmate who received more favorable treatment, nor facts evidencing intentional or purposeful discrimination for the alleged less favorable treatment.
As noted above, Williams filed lengthy objections to Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation, which the court must now consider in its review of Judge Zoss's recommended disposition of this action.
The standard of review to be applied by the district court to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge is established by statute:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that it is reversible error for the district court to fail to conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report where such review is required. See, e.g., Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 306 (8th Cir.) (citing 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 860, 117 S.Ct. 164, 136 L.Ed.2d 107 (1996); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir.1994)); Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995) (also citing Belk). However, the plain language of the statute governing review provides only for de novo review of "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, portions of the proposed findings or recommendations to which no objections are filed are reviewed only for "plain error." See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir.1994) ().
The court finds that the objections Williams has filed in this matter are sufficient to invoke de novo review of Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation. In his objections, Williams contends that, in general, Judge Zoss has misapprehended his claims or has ignored portions of his claims. More specifically, at least as this court understands Williams's objections, he contends that Judge Zoss did not address his claim of retaliation for assisting inmates with legal matters in relation to the two misconduct reports; did not consider, misapprehended, and did not require the defendants to respond to, his claims of conspiracy and invidious discrimination against "lifers," including his equal protection attack on the "quota system"; misapprehended his claims pertaining to the two misconduct reports, which are actually claims of a conspiracy to deny him "due process in place for disciplinary reports," retaliation for being a jailhouse lawyer, with sanctions for his alleged misconduct selected accordingly, and "orchestration" of the conspiracy by defendant Soupene by turning over the matter to another ALJ to "safeguard against the appearance of impropriety"; and failed to examine the procedural deviations in the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lampman v. Ternus
...v. Weber, 741 F. Supp.2d 993, 1009 (N.D. Iowa 2010); Dibble v. Scholl, 410 F. Supp.2d 807, 817 (N.D. Iowa 2006); Williams v. Manternach, 192 F. Supp.2d 980, 985 (N.D. Iowa 2002); Busch v. City of Anthon, 173 F. Supp.2d 876, 886 (N.D. Iowa 2001); Kish v. Iowa Cent. Cmty. College, 142 F. Supp......
-
Access to court.
...of actually attending it." (United States District Court, District of New Mexico) U.S. District Court Williams v. Manternach, 192 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D.Iowa 2002). An inmate brought a [section] JAILHOUSE LAWYERS 1983 action against corrections officials RETALIATION alleging due process and equ......
-
Work-prisoner.
...distinguished." (Metropolitan Correctional Center, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Chicago) U.S. District Court Williams v. Manternach, 192 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D.Iowa 2002). An inmate brought a [section] DISCIPLINE 1983 action against corrections officials alleging due process and equal protection ......
-
Discipline.
...for authoring and possessing certain articles. (Attica Correctional Facility, New York) U.S. District Court Williams v. Manternach, 192 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D.Iowa 2002). An inmate brought a [section] RETALIATION 1983 action against corrections officials alleging due process and equal protectio......
-
Civil rights.
...for prisoners who were open about their homosexuality. (Arizona Department of Corrections) U.S. District Court Williams v. Manternach, 192 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D.Iowa 2002). An inmate brought a [section] EQUAL PROTECTION 1983 action against corrections officials alleging due process and equal p......