IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2016-CP-01494-COA HENRY HINTON JR. A/K/A HENRY HINTON APPELLANT

v. BRIAN LADNER, WARDEN APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. STEVE S. RATCLIFF III COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: HENRY HINTON JR. (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/20/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND WESTBROOKS, JJ. BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. H e n r y H i n t o n i s a n inm ate i n the custody of the M ississ i p p i D e p a r t me n t o f Corrections (MDOC), conf ined at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP). Hinton was f ound guilty of two rule v iolations f or verbally engaging in bribery with a correction of f icer and pursuing a relationship wi t h t hat correction of f icer. As punishm ent, Hinton lost privileges f

or one m o n th. Hinton a

ppealed the d e c i s i o n w i t

h M D O C ’ s a d

m i n i s t r a t ive-rem edy
program (ARP). W arden Brian Ladner af f irm ed H inton’s rule violations. Hinton th en appealed to the Ra n kin County Circuit Court, which af f irm ed MDOC’s decision. Hinton now appeals, and f

inding no error, we af

f irm

. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¶2. In 2015, Hinton was convicted in Pike C o u n t y o f t h ree c ounts of possession of a controlled substance with the i n t e n t t o distribute a nd one count o f attem pting to obtain a controlled substance. He was sente n c ed to serve three f i ve-y ear term s and one three-y ear
term , with the sentences running concurrently , in the custody of the MDOC. ¶3. W h ile an inm ate at the Central Mississippi Correctional F acility , Hinton was issued

two separate rule-violation reports (RVR) o n February 27, 2016. In RVR N o. 01553562, he

was accused of verbally b ribing a correction of f icer to o btain a slice of pizza f rom her. The of f icer stated that Hinton put a note in a box asking her to put any lef tover p izza s he had in the trash, and he “would be happy to dispose o f i t.” 1 He asked her to f lash his cell l ights, and he would com e get the p izza. At his hearing, Hinton adm itted that he put the note i n the box, but he claim ed he did not ask f or or give her any

t hing. In RVR N o. 01553563, Hinton was accused of

pursuing a relationship with the sam e correction of f icer. ¶4. At a d isciplinary h earing, Hinton was f ound guilty of b oth rule violations and lost all privileges f

or one m onth. Hinton claim e d that as an ad ded punishm ent h e was placed in a

m uch m ore restrictive area t h e f ollowing day

—a claim MDOC denies. In March 2016, Hinton f iled grievances f

or both RVRs with MDOC’s ARP, claim i ng the statem ents in the

1 T h e n o te’s co m

p lete tex t stated : S ecrets to in c rease y o u r k arm a! * H elp th e n eed ie.* M D O C p o licy allo w s y o u to b rin g f o o d in to th e f

acility

. P o licy a lso allo w s y o u t o d isp o s e a n y u n w an ted p o rtio n y o u f

ail to co n su m e. Y o u m ay b e k n o w n as s lim alth o u g h y o u ap p ear to eat w e ll. T h eref

o re an y u n w a n t e d p o r tio n y o u d o n ’t w ish to co n su m e, sim p ly d ro p it in th e b o x . I w ill b e h ap p y to d isp o se o f it v ia th e t rash f o r y o u . N o h arm . N o f

o u l. Q u o te o f

th e D ay – A n o ld er m a n h as learn , an d h as th e ab ility to k eep h is m o u th sh u t. 2note were taken out of context. ¶5. I n April 2016, Hinton received and acknowledged M D O C ’ s d e c i s i o n . H i n t o n appealed MDOC’s A RP decision t o the Rankin County Circuit Court. M DOC responded to Hinton’s appeal, stating there was substantial evidence to support the RVRs. ¶6. In June 2016, Hinton am ended his com plaint, claim ing his d

ue-process right to notice

was v i o lated because he could not read his copies of the RVRs b ef ore his hearing. The
MDOC f iled a n answer t o h is am ended com plaint deny ing Hinton’s assertions. The MDOC denied that Hinton was transf erred to a m ore restrictive holding area due to the RVRs, that he was punished in retaliation f or “get t i n g i n [ t h e captain’s 2 ] business,” that he was given illegible copies o f t he RVRs, o r that his note was t aken out o f c ontext. In October 2016, the circuit court af

f irm ed MDOC’s decision. Hinton tim ely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7. T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t disturb the decision of an adm inistrative agency , s u ch as th e MDOC, unless the decision w as “unsupported by s u bstantial evidence, a rbitrary or capricious, bey ond the agency ’s scope or powers, or violative o f the c o n s titutional or statutory rights o f the a ggrieved p arty .” Taylor v. Petrie , 41 So. 3d 7 24, 727 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Edwards v. Booker , 796 So. 2d 991, 994 (¶10) (Miss. 2001)). “There is a rebuttable presum

ption which f

avors the a gency ’s decision and the challenging party has the burden of proving the contrary .” Ross v. E pps , 922 So. 2d 847, 849 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citing State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy v
. Gray , 674 So. 2d 1 251, 1253 ( Miss. 1996)).

2 H in to n claim s C ap tain M itch ell, th e d iscip lin ary o f f i cer, o rch estrated h i s tran sf er. 3ANALYSIS

I. MDOC’s Decision ¶8. Hinton argues there w as not substantial evidence to s u p p o r t M DOC’s decision that he violated M DOC rules against bribery and pursuing a relationship. W e r eview MDOC’s decision under the substantial-evidence standard. S mith v
. W esley , 1 57 S o. 3d 860, 861 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “ Substantial evidence is not an especially l a r ge quantum

. . . . [ It]

m ay be less than a preponderance, but m ust be m ore than a scintilla, a nd m ust

. . . m ake any conclusion based on that evidence a reasonable one.” M iss. Dep’t of Transp. v
. Rutland , 965 So. 2d 696, 703 (¶12) (Miss. 2007) (quoting Miss. D ep’t of Corr. v. Smith , 883 So. 2d 124,
129 ( ¶ 1 5 ) ( M i ss. Ct. App. 2 004)). “Def erence is af

f orded ‘to the f

act-f inding role of the adm inistrative agency and the h earing of f icer’s f indings.’” Smith , 157 So. 3d at 862 (¶8) (quoting Johnson v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr. , 682 So. 2d 367, 370 (Miss. 1996)). ¶9. We f

i n d that H inton f

ailed to p rove M DOC’s decision w a s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y substantial evidence. Hinton claim s his note was taken out of context, and he did not bribe
any one f or any thing, but m erely of

f ered to dispose of the pizza in the trash. He also denies

attem pting to pursue a relationship with the f em ale of f icer, arguing that the note w as written to apply to any one. ¶10. W e are not persuaded by these argum e nts. Hinton adm itted to writing the note to the f em ale of f icer in the t ower, which is inappropriate c om m unication. A copy o f the note was adm itted into e vidence, in which Hinton was of f ering som ething of value—to take out the of f icer’s trash f

or her to obtain the pizza. He a dm itted in the h earing that his m otive was to

4sneak back and retrieve the p i zza f rom t he trash. These actions also est a b l i s h a n inappropriate relationship with a n of f i cer that com

prom ises the security of MDOC’s f acility

. Accordingly , MDOC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
II. Constitutional Issues ¶11. Hinton raises s everal constitutional issues, such a s d ue p rocess and f

ree speech. First, Hinton argues his due-process right to notice was violated because his copies of the RVRs

were illegible. 3 T hus, he states he did not know the c harges against h im at t he hearing. Additionally , Hinton argues his due-process right to be heard was violated because he was not allowed to m ake statem ents in his own def e nse during the hearing. ¶12. Altho u gh H inton argues his due-process rights w ere v iolated in num erous way s, as he also notes, not all a dm inistrative disciplinary a c tions are subject to due-process analy sis.
It is well established that p u n i s h ment of tem porary loss of privileges is not generally considered a constitutionally protected l iberty i nterest. Mixon v. Enlers , 90 S o. 3d 635, 637 ( ¶ 6 ) ( M i s s . C t

. App. 2012) ( citing Madison v. Parker , 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997)). Accordingly , Hinton has no liberty interest t hat could give rise to a legitim a t e due-process claim

. ¶13. To circum v ent this b ar, Hinton contends t hat his prison transf er im m ediately af

ter his disciplinary hearing was part of his punishm ent f or his RVRs, which violated his due-process rights. MDOC denies this a llegation, and Hinton provides n o proof in support. A dditionally ,

3 O n A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 , H in to n w ro te a le tter to M D O C ’s A R P claim s ad j u d icato r r e q u e s t i n g a n o th er c o p y o f th e R V R s b ecau se H in to n c o u ld n o t read th e co p ies h e w as p ro v id ed at th e h earin g . In M ay 2 0 1 6 , th e M D O C resp o n d ed t h a t co p i es are n o t p ro v id ed f o r p riso n ers. 5Hinton’s due-process argum ents are without m erit. Even though the c opies of Hinton’s two

RVRs in the r e c o r d are of p oor quality , Hinton com plained of it over a m onth af ter the disciplinary hearing and receipt o f MDOC’s decision a g ainst him —not when the RVRs were f irst issued. F urther, Hinton did not request any evidence b e introd u c e d a t t h e hearing to ref ute the RVRs or request any w itnesses. Theref ore, we c a nnot s ay that Hinton was denied due process, as he was provided and attended a f air and i m p artial d isciplinary hearing where he was m a de aware of

the nature of

the charges against him

. ¶14. Finally , Hinton claim s prison of f icials retaliated against h im f or exercising his First
Am endm ent right to f

ree speech i n prison by writing the no t e . H e argues the n ote did not violate any

specif ic MDOC rules or policies and was not directed at any one in particular. ¶15. Again, we are not p ersu a d e d b y this argum ent. There was substantial e vidence to support MDOC’s decision upholding Hinton’s RVRs, w hich cite spe c i f i c M DOC rule violations. Additionally , Hinton adm i tted to writing the note, even if he ref uted any violative intent. ¶16. Accordingly , we af f irm the circuit court’s judgm e nt af f irm ing MDOC’s decision. ¶17. AFFIRMED. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., CARLTON, F A IR, WILSON, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

6