United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Western Division
Carlos Perdue, Plaintiff, Pro se, Brent, AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. MICHAEL PUTNAM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Carlos Perdue, has filed a pro se amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that rights, privileges, or immunities afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United States have been abridged during his incarceration at Bibb Correctional Facility in Brent, Alabama. Plaintiff names as defendants Warden Willie Thomas, Captain Roesha Butler, Captain John Hutton, Lieutenant Felisha Ford, and Correctional Officer Katrina Moore. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief. In accordance with the usual practices of this court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the complaint was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a preliminary report and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 804, 110 Stat. 1321, and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, requires this court to screen complaints filed by prisoners against officers or employees of governmental entities and to dismiss the complaint or any portion of the complaint that it finds frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Thus, under § 1915A, the court may sua sponte dismiss a prisoner's complaint prior to service. Nevertheless, in order to protect a pro se prisoner's right of access to the courts, these complaints are read by less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Harmon v. Berry, 728 F.2d 1407, 1409 (11th Cir. 1984); Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976).
Plaintiff alleges that in 2012, he authorized his daughter to transfer $150.00 from his prison account to Inmate Charles Craig's account to help Craig pay for court costs. (Doc. 6, Amend. Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff also authorized his daughter to transfer $150.00 from his prison account to Inmate Manrillio Gonzales's account to pay for two (2) footballs Gonzales made for plaintiff. ( Id.)
Captain Roesha Butler charged plaintiff with conspiracy to transfer funds, which is a violation of institutional rules. ( Id.) Lieutenant Felisha Ford and Correctional Officer Katrina Moore conducted a disciplinary hearing and found plaintiff guilty of the charge. ( Id.) Captain John Hutton froze the $150.00 in Inmates Craig's and Gonzales's respective prison accounts. (Doc. 6, Amend. Compl. at 3.) For relief, plaintiff requests that Defendant Hutton release the $150.00 in each inmate's account. ( Id. at 4.)
A. Warden Willie Thomas.
Plaintiff names Warden Willie Thomas as a defendant but fails to assert any specific allegation against Thomas in the amended complaint. Vague, general or conclusory allegations are insufficient to merit relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, much less a complete lack of any allegation. See Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984). Because of plaintiff's failure to state any factual allegations against Defendant Thomas, this defendant is due to be dismissed.
B. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process.
1. Captain Butler, Lieutenant Ford, & Correctional Officer Moore.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Butler charged him with conspiracy to transfer funds which is a violation of institutional rules. As a result, plaintiff was placed in the behavioral modification bay for 130 days.
An inmate has a right not to be deprived of a protected liberty interest without due process of law. Therefore, to prevail on his claim that his assignment to the behavioral modification bay violated his constitutional right to due process, the plaintiff must establish that he had a liberty interest in being free from confinement in administrative segregation. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (" The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation interests encompassed by the Fourteenth ...