No. 6:24-cv-00016

Louis Jackson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Mable Sweat et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Louis Jackson, a prisoner of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice (TDCJ) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case 

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3. 

On January 22, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 

1915(e)(2). Doc. 5. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 7.

The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants forged his name on a sign-in 

sheet for a urinalysis drug test, which resulted in a false conviction 

at a prison disciplinary hearing. Doc. 1 at 3–4. Plaintiff filed a grievance with TDCJ and his disciplinary conviction was overturned 

prior to filing this lawsuit. Id. at 4–5. 

As the magistrate judge observed, the Fifth Circuit has held that 

there is no due process violation when a falsely accused prisoner “is 

given an adequate state procedural remedy to challenge the accusations.” Doc. 5 at 5; Grant v. Thomas, 37 F.3d 632, 1994 WL 558835 

(5th Cir. Sept. 23, 1994). Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to a 

state a claim for due process violation. 

Case 6:24-cv-00016-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 05/09/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 36
- 2 -

The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff did not suffer any 

atypical and significant hardship as required to trigger a right to due 

process and that he has no constitutional right to have the defendants 

prosecuted or punished for any criminal acts. Doc. 5 at 4. 

Plaintiff’s objection to the report does not refute those findings. 

He confirms that his disciplinary conviction was overturned. Doc. 7 

at 3. So any sentence credits that had been revoked were presumably 

restored. See id. He now asserts that this incident is a “mark on [his] 

rehabilitation file,” but he does not allege any facts establishing any 

actual injury in connection with that “mark” in light of the administrative reversal of his conviction. Id. at 4. And for the reasons the 

magistrate judge explained, any short time plaintiff spent subjected 

to other restrictions—including his newly-alleged forty-five days of 

cell restriction—do not rise to the level required to state a claim for 

a due process violation. Doc. 5 at 4. 

Plaintiff reiterates that defendants’ alleged actions were criminal. But for the reasons the magistrate judge explained, that alone 

does not state a viable claim for relief under Section 1983. Doc. 5 at 

4. Plaintiff also complains that defendants violated department 

codes of conduct, but violation of prison policy does not amount to 

a constitutional violation. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1251 

(5th Cir. 1989). (“A state’s failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not establish a violation of due process, because ‘constitutional minima may nevertheless have been met.’”). Finally, plaintiff alleges a conspiracy between the defendants, but defendants cannot be liable for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of 

the plaintiff’s civil rights. See Jackson v. City of Hearne, Texas, 959 

F.3d 194, 206 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that a defendant “cannot be 

held liable for participation in a conspiracy that failed to violate any 

of the plaintiff’s rights”).

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s 

objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommendation. 

This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

Case 6:24-cv-00016-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 05/09/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 37
- 3 -

So ordered by the court on May 9, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:24-cv-00016-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 05/09/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 38