Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00094/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00094-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER W. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

ADC #153430

v. CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00094 BSM

JUSTINE MINOR, Disciplinary Hearing

Officer, Delta Regional Unit DEFENDANT

ORDER

The recommended disposition (“RD”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge

Joe J. Volpe [Doc. No. 4] and plaintiff Christopher Williams’s objections [Doc. Nos. 7, 8]

have been reviewed. After a de novo review, the RD is adopted with modification.

The RD dismisses the complaint because the allegations did not implicate a protected

liberty interest. As Williams notes, the RD does not mention his loss of good time credit,

which could be such an interest. Doc. No. 8 at 2–3; see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

556–59 (1974); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477–78 (1995). This is a not a blanket rule,

however, as state law, not the federal Constitution, determines whether a state created the

protected interest. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484; Dobrovolny v. Moore, 126 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th

Cir. 1997) (a state retains the right to interpret availability of state-conferred interest).

Although some states have created this protected interest, Arkansas has not. Williams

points to Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201 as the statutory right to good time credit. Doc. No.

8 at 3. That provision does not create an entitlement to good time, however, because it is

permissive and not absolute. See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201(a) (an inmate “may be

entitled” to good time) (emphasis added)). Furthermore, good time in Arkansas does not

Case 5:16-cv-00094-BSM Document 10 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 2
reduce the length of a sentence, id. § 12-29-201(d), but only the location and conditions of

confinement, id. § 12-29-201(e)(1). See id. § 16-93-1302(d) (good time “shall not be

considered as a reduction in sentence”). The Arkansas Supreme Court has concluded that

this language does not create a protected liberty interest, which the federal district court has

adopted. See, e.g., Curtis v. Kelley, Case No. 4:15-CV-00098 DPM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 13,

2016), Doc. No. 35 (“Arkansas hasn’t created a liberty interest in good time credits.”);

Cooper v. Norris, No. 5:09-CV-00278 SWW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109852 (E.D. Ark. Oct.

27, 2009); McKinnon v. Norris, 231 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Ark. 2006) (“Arkansas has not created

a liberty interest in good time under [Wolff].”).

Accordingly, Williams’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for the failure to

state a claim, which constitutes as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). No certification will

be made as to the good faith nature of an in forma pauperis appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of May 2016.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:16-cv-00094-BSM Document 10 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 2