Opinion ID: 70656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inadequate Procedure at Disciplinary Hearing

Text: Jackson baldly states that – in losing his good-time credits at the disciplinary hearing – he did not receive constitutionally required procedural protections: written notice of the evidence against him and the right to call witnesses in his defense. This court has suggested that prisoners may bring a § 1983 claim for damages for the deprivation of civil rights relating to disciplinary procedures, as long as the prisoner does not challenge the substantive result of the hearing.17 The damages sought must not “encompass 15 See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing cases). 16 Williams v. Dretke, 306 F. App’x 164, 166 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (citing Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 953-54 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). 17 Mahogany v. Stalder, 242 F. App’x 261 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished); White, 294 F. App’x at 961 (“A claim for damages based on a failure to receive a written statement of the evidence relied on in a prison disciplinary proceeding is cognizable under §1983.”); Randle v. Woods, 299 F. App’x 466, 468 (5th Cir. 7 Case: 09-30667 Document: 00511008662 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/20/2010 No. 09-30667 the injury of being deprived of good-time credits, and must stem solely from the deprivation of civil rights.”18 A fine line, to be sure, but one that we need not in this case negotiate. Even if Jackson could state a cognizable claim, he does not do so here. His conclusory declaration that his jailors create an atmosphere where a prisoner may be deprived of procedural due process does not “raise [his] right to relief above the speculative level.” 19 Although not necessary to our decision, the record reflects that Jackson’s claim is factually frivolous: he did receive advance notice of both the charges and evidence against him; and he did not seek to call witnesses at his hearing. 2008) (unpublished) (“An inmate may still be entitled to nominal monetary damages if he proves that the procedures in a disciplinary hearing were wrong, even if the substantive result – i.e. the deprivation of good-time credits – is not.”). See generally Clarke, 154 F.3d at 189 (“Claims for damages and declaratory relief challenging the procedures used in, but not the results of, prison disciplinary proceedings are similarly not cognizable in a § 1983 action until the relevant ‘conviction’ has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid if a favorable judgment would ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of the prisoner’s ‘conviction’ in the disciplinary proceeding or the length of the prisoner’s confinement.”). 18 Mahogany, 242 F. App’x at 263 (citing Heck) (quotations omitted). 19 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “It is well-established that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. However, regardless of whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or is represented by counsel, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 8 Case: 09-30667 Document: 00511008662 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/20/2010 No. 09-30667