FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 23, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14933 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -011 19 -C V -J T C -1 A L B E R T N E L S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s L E E H . G R E E N , D i sc i pl i ne H e a r in g O f

f ic e r , F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F P R I S O N S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m be r23, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A lb e rt N e ls o n , ap r o s e f e d e r a l p r is o n e r , ap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to a m e n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is B iv e n s c o m p la in t f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im . H e a r g u e s th a t alib e r a l c o n s tru c tio n o f h is c o m p la in t a n d m o tio n to am end i nd i ca t es thathe suff i ci ent l y r ai se d a du e proces s c l ai m thatthe di sc i pl i nary hear i ng offi ce r’ s gui l ty f i nd i ng and con se qu entpu ni shm entvi ol at ed hi s proce du ra l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . H e a r g u e s th a t h e h a s ac o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to have hi s c orre ct i on al fi l e f re e f rom fa l se i nform at i on and thatthe evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rtthe deci si on of the di sc i pl i naryhear i ng offi ce r thathe w as gu i l ty of f

i gh t i ng w i th ano ther i nm at e. H e argues thatthe st andard of revi ew w hen apr i s one rc ha l l e nge s adi s c i pl i na ryboa r d orhe a r i ng of f i c e r ’ s f i ndi ng of gui l ti s the m or e l e ni e nt“ s om e e vi de nc e ” s t a nda r d, a nd nota“ pr e - a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c a nt hardshi p t es t . ” H e argues f or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l thatthe fi gh t i ng i nci dentm ay pr e ve nthi m f

r om obt a i ni ng af

a vor abl e tr a ns f

e rt o a nothe rpr i s on a nd tha the r e c e i ve d s e ve n da y s di s c i pl i na ry t i m e f orthe i nc i de nt . H e a l s o r a i s e s the i s s ue of w he the radi s c i pl i na ry he ar i ng of f i c e rc a n f i nd an i nm a t e gui l tyof

vi ol a t i ng a f e de r a l r e gul a t i on on s om e thi ng l e s s tha n apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , a nd ar gu es thatun der the curre ntre gu l at i on prov i di ng for ast andard of proo f l ow er tha n apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , a n i nm a t e c a n be puni s he d f ora n a c the p r o b ab lyd id n o t c o m m it, w h ic h h ap p e n e d in h is c a s e .3

W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of aR ul e 59( e ) m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd j udgm e ntf or abuse of di sc re t i on . L ockard v. E qu i fa x, Inc. , 16 3 F . 3d 12 59 , 12 67 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). W e do n otre vi ew cl ai m s notra i se d i n the di stri ctcourtexce pti n l i m i t ed c i r c um s t a nc e s . S e e A c c e s s N ow , I nc . v. S outhw e s tA i r l i ne s C o. , 385 F . 3d 1324, 1 3 3 1 - 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . P u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C § 1 9 1 5 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m a yd is m is s ac a s e f ile d in f orm apaupe r i s a ta ny t i m e i f i ti s f r i vol ous orm a l i c i ous , f a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w h ic h r e lie f

m a y b e g r a n te d , o rs e e k s m o n e ta ryr e lie f a g a in s t ad e f

e n d a n t w h o is im m u n e f

r o m s u c h r e lie f

. 2 8 U .S .C § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i- iii) . “A c la im is f r iv o lo u s if i ti s w i thouta r guabl e m e r i te i the ri n l a w orf a c t . ” B i l a l v. D r i ve r , 251 F . 3d 1346, 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . In B i v en s v . S i x U n k n o w n N am ed A g en t s o f F ed eral B u reau o f N arco t i cs, 403 U . S . 388, 395- 397, 91 S . C t . 1999, 2004- 05, 29 L . E d. 2d 619 ( 1971) , the S up re m e C ou rthel d thati nj ured pl ai nt i ff s c an bri ng a c ause of ac t i on for dam ages a ga i ns tf e de r a l of f i c e r s ba s e d on vi ol a t i ons of the i rc ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . B i ve ns i nv ol ved al l eged vi ol at i on s of the F ou rth A m endm ent , bu tthe S up re m e C ou rthas a ls o a llo w e d B iv e n s a c tio n s f o rv io la tio n s o f

th e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F if th A m e ndm e nt . D a vi s v. P a s s m a n, 442 U . S . 228, 233- 248, 99 S . C t . 2264, 2271- 22 79 , 60 L . E d. 2d 84 6 (19 79 ).Nelson’s re quest for oral argument is denied. 1 4 A n i nm at e, on e w ho has a l re ady bee n d epri ved o f l i berty, can b e depri ved f urthe rof hi s l i be rty , s uc h tha tdue pr oc e s s i s r e qui r e d, w he n ( 1) ac ha nge i n the pr i s one r ’ s c ondi t i ons of c onf i ne m e nti s s o s e ve r e tha ti te s s e nt i a l l ye xc e e ds the s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e c o u rt, o r( 2 ) w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s c o n s is te n tly be s t ow e d ac e rt a i n be ne f i tt o pr i s one r s , us ua l l ythr ough s t a tut e ora dm i ni s tr a t i ve pol i c y , a nd the de pr i va t i on of tha tbe ne f

i t“ i m pos e s a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c a nt ha r ds hi p on the i nm a t e i n r e l a t i on t o the or di na ryi nc i de nt s of pr i s on l i f

e . ” K i rbyv. S i egel m an, 19 5 F . 3d 12 85 , 12 90 -91 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( ci t i ng S andi n v . C on ner, 51 5 U . S . 47 2, 48 4 1 15 S . C t . 22 93 , 23 00 , 13 2 L . E d. 2d 41 8 (19 95 )) . N el son fai l ed t o al l ege i n h i s c om pl ai ntthathe suff er ed any di sc i pl i nary a c t i on tha tw a s i n e xc e s s of the s e nt e nc e he w a s s e rvi ng orw a s a n a typi c a l a nd s ig n if ic a n t h a r d s h ip , a n d th u s , h is c o m p la in t f a ile d to s ta te a n a c tio n ab le c la im un der the st andard setforth i n S andi n. B ec ause the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y r el i ed on S andi n i n fi nd i ng thatN el son h ad fa i l ed t o al l ege the depri vat i on of a prot ec t ed lib e rtyin te r e s t, th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g N e ls o n ’s m o tio n to a m e n d ju d g m e n t o n th e b a s is th a t th e c o u rt ap p lie d th e w r o n g la w . A FFI R M ED 1