Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05866/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05866-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Johnson
Plaintiff
Gail Lewis
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

ANDRE JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

GAIL LEWIS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-5866 LJO DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the amended complaint, filed

March 9, 2007. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

"frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Case 1:03-cv-05866-LJO-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

In the instant case, plaintiff brings action against Warden Gail Lewis of Pleasant Valley State

Prison. Plaintiff alleges that his prior conviction, which was reversed on appeal, is being used

improperly by prison officials when classifying plaintiff. 

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty without due

process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of

action for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a

liberty interest for which the protection is sought. Liberty interests may arise from the Due

Process Clause itself or from state law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983).

The Due Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in a particular

classification status. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88, n.9 (1976). The existence of a

liberty interest created by state law is determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation.

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995). Liberty interests created by state law are

generally limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on

the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. Under

certain circumstances, labeling a prisoner with a particular classification may implicate a liberty

interest subject to the protections of due process. See Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827 (9th

Cir. 1997) (“[T]he stigmatizing consequences of the attachment of the ‘sex offender’ label

coupled with the subjection of the targeted inmate to a mandatory treatment program whose

successful completion is a precondition for parole eligibility create the kind of deprivations of

liberty that require procedural protections.”).

In order to pursue a claim for relief against defendants for denial of procedural due

process, Plaintiff must establish the existence of a liberty interest entitling him to procedural due

process protections. The law has not recognized that inmates necessarily have a liberty interest

in remaining free from segregation or solitary confinement, and Plaintiff has alleged no facts that

establish the existence of a liberty interest in remaining free from segregation or solitary

confinement. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (convicted inmate’s due

Case 1:03-cv-05866-LJO-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

process claim fails because he has no liberty interest in freedom from state action taken within

sentence imposed and administrative segregation falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily

contemplated by a sentence) (quotations omitted); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000) (plaintiff’s placement and retention in the SHU was within range of confinement normally

expected by inmates in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life and, therefore, plaintiff had no

protected liberty interest in being free from confinement in the SHU) (quotations omitted).

Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the prior conviction in Plaintiff’s prison file has

subjected him to conditions constituting an “atypical and significant” hardship. Because the

complaint fails to state a due process claim regarding Plaintiff’s classification status, the court

recommends dismissal of the complaint. The Court does not deem it appropriate to grant leave to

amend because plaintiff has already been given the opportunity o amend the complaint and was

unable to cure the deficiency.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, for failure

to state a section 1983 claim.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05866-LJO-DLB Document 17 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3