[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12043

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00605-SPM-CAS

JOHN C. SPAULDING, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONNIE WOODALL,

JEREMY JOHNSON,

Z. Z. FORD, et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(January 6, 2014)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 1 of 7 
2

John C. Spaulding, a Florida prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal 

of his pro se complaint for failure to state a claim before Defendants filed a 

responsive pleading. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Spaulding alleges that prison 

officials placed him in administrative and disciplinary confinement for over one 

hundred days, subjected him to greater restrictions than those faced by the general 

prison population or those in segregated confinement, placed him on a special 

management meal, and labeled him a sexual predator, all in violation of his liberty 

interests without due process of law. We reverse and remand to allow Defendants 

the opportunity to respond to Spaulding’s third amended complaint. 

I.

While at the Suwannee Correctional Institution on February 20, 2011,

Spaulding was placed in administrative confinement. On March 3, 2011, 

Spaulding was sentenced to a thirty day disciplinary confinement. While in 

disciplinary confinement, Spaulding was exercising without a shirt and was told by 

Corrections Officer Jennings that he would be disciplined. Jennings returned and 

placed a magnet and a pink sheet on his cell, thereby labeling him a sexual 

predator. The same day, Defendant Johnson told Spaulding that a disciplinary 

report would be issued for commission of a lewd and lascivious act, and he would 

be placed on a special management meal. That disciplinary report, issued on 

March 18, 2011, accused Spaulding of masturbating while staring at a female 

Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 2 of 7 
3

prison guard. On March 24, 2011, Spaulding denied this accusation at a 

disciplinary hearing; he was also denied an opportunity to review video

surveillance from the date of the alleged incident. Spaulding was sentenced to 

sixty days additional confinement, thus spending a total of 102 days in segregated 

confinement. Also, Spaulding alleges that prison officials imposed more stringent 

restrictions on his confinement than those typically imposed in disciplinary 

confinement, including a special management meal, revocation of visitation, 

telephone, television, and library privileges. Third, as a result of the disciplinary 

report, Spaulding’s close management status was upgraded, despite the fact that

another inmate disciplined for the same conduct was not subject to the same 

upgrade. Finally, Spaulding alleges that prison officials ignored the hand injury he 

received in self-defense from his cell mate, a known gang member. 

Proceeding pro se, Spaulding filed a complaint in November 2011, and 

subsequently filed an amended complaint on the approved complaint form in 

compliance with Northern District of Florida procedure.

1

 Upon review, the 

magistrate judge found that the special management meal did not implicate a 

liberty interest, and thus its imposition prior to a hearing did not violate due 

process. Second, the magistrate judge construed Spaulding’s claim that he was 

 

1 The Magistrate Judge denied Spaulding’s request for a copy of the documents he submitted 

with his original complaint, stating that the court had reviewed said exhibits and they would be 

considered incorporated by reference in the amended complaint.

Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 3 of 7 
4

falsely labeled a sexual predator as a cruel punishment claim, and dismissed it. 

With respect to Spaulding’s claim that he was required to stay in confinement 

beyond the sentence imposed, the magistrate judge granted leave for Spaulding to 

amend his complaint again. However, Spaulding’s second amended complaint 

omitted his claims against Defendant Jennings and the claim that his liberty was 

restricted as a result of being labeled a sexual predator. Upon finding that 

Spaulding did not present a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the 

magistrate judge granted Spaulding leave to file a third amended complaint, 

instructing him to only include claims stemming from his disciplinary 

confinement. In March 2012, Spaulding filed a third amended complaint, 

including allegations about the length and condition of his disciplinary 

confinement and deliberate indifference regarding his injured hand. 

Upon review, the magistrate judge recommended that Spaulding’s claim be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding that the time 

Spaulding spent in disciplinary confinement was not an “excessive” or “atypical” 

hardship.2

 The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissing Spaulding’s 

claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

II.

 

2 Spaulding insists that this finding ignores the twenty-one additional days of administrative 

confinement.

Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 4 of 7 
5

We review the district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to 

state a claim under § 1915(A) de novo, taking the allegations in the complaint as 

true, and using the same standards as govern a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 

2006). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and should be liberally 

construed. Tannenbaum v. U.S., 148 F. 3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).

III.

In his appeal, Spaulding argues that state officials deprived him of his 

constitutionally protected liberty interests. Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225, 

1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (to state a §1983 claim, claimant must allege “(1) a 

deprivation of constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state 

action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process.”). Spaulding notes that this 

court has recognized that Florida prisoners have a liberty interest in remaining in 

the general prison population, Sheley v. Dugger, 833 F.2d 1420, 1424 (11th Cir. 

1987), and thus assigning a prisoner to disciplinary confinement under conditions 

that are “atypical and significant” gives rise to a liberty interest subject to due 

process. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). 

Here, Spaulding argues that the duration and conditions of his confinement were 

Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 5 of 7 
6

significantly restricted compared to the general prison population, and that this 

hardship analysis cannot be dismissed without a factual inquiry.

3

 

In addition to the liberty interest arising from the extent and nature of his 

segregated confinement, Spaulding explains that this court has recognized that 

prisoners have a liberty interest in not being branded as a sex offender. See Kirby 

v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285, 1291 (11th Cir. 1999). Spaulding argues that he was 

deprived of his liberty interest in not being identified as a sexual predator. 

Moreover, Spaulding emphasizes that this labeling occurred without notice or a 

hearing in violation of the due process required for prisoners facing disciplinary 

actions. See Young v. Jones, 37 F.3d 1457, 1459–60 (11th Cir. 1994).

We have a duty to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s assertions to discern 

whether there is a basis for relief. Tannenbaum, 148 F. 3d at 1263. Construing 

Spaulding’s claims broadly, he plausibly alleges that Defendants deprived him of 

constitutionally protected liberty interests without due process. However, 

Defendants did not submit any responsive pleading prior to the district court’s 

dismissal of Spaulding’s third amended complaint. Given the liberal construction 

afforded pro se litigants, we reverse and remand this case to the district court in 

 

3 For example, in Wallace v. Hamrick, this court reversed dismissal of prisoner’s complaint 

because his allegations of no hot water, ventilation, or opportunity to exercise set forth facts that 

might implicate a protected liberty interest. 229 Fed. App’x 827, 830 (11th Cir. 2007).

Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 6 of 7 
7

order for Defendants to file a responsive pleading to Spaulding’s third amended 

complaint.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 7 of 7