United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen
(14) days after being served with the attached Report to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being
served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
have been accepted by the District Court.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
pro se plaintiff, an inmate confined at the
Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”), Angola,
Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the United States, complaining that his
constitutional rights were violated in connection with a
disciplinary proceeding. He prays for monetary and injunctive
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, this Court is
authorized to dismiss an action or claim brought by a
prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis or is
asserting a claim against a governmental entity or an officer
or employee of a governmental entity if satisfied that the
action or claim is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. An action or claim is
properly dismissed as frivolous if the claim lacks an
arguable basis either in fact or in law. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992), citing Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hicks v.
Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 24-25 (5th Cir. 1995).
is factually frivolous if the alleged facts are
“clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations
that are ‘fanciful, ' ‘fantastic, ' and
‘delusional.'” Id. at 32-33. A claim
has no arguable basis in law if it is based upon an
indisputably meritless legal theory, “such as if the
complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist.” Davis v. Scott, 157
F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). The law accords judges not
only the authority to dismiss a claim which is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations.
Denton v. Hernandez, supra, 504 U.S. at 32.
Pleaded facts which are merely improbable or strange,
however, are not frivolous for purposes of § 1915.
Id. at 33; Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964
F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). A § 1915 dismissal may be
made any time, before or after service or process and before
or after an answer is filed, if the court determines that the
action “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1999 (5th Cir.
plaintiff alleges the following in his Complaint: During a
disciplinary hearing, false documents were filed into the
record, the tape recording of the proceeding was turned off,
and the plaintiff was not allowed to call any witnesses.
Section 1983 only imposes liability on a “person”
who violates another's constitutional rights under color
of law. The plaintiff has not named any person as a defendant
in this matter.
a claim regarding the issuance of a false disciplinary
report, without more, fails to state a claim of federal
constitutional dimension cognizable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Specifically, the law is clear that the
mere issuance of one or more false disciplinary reports and
the imposition of resulting punishment does not alone amount
to a constitutional violation. See Grant v. Thomas, 37
F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 1994), citing Collins v.
King, 743 F.2d 248, 253-54 (5th Cir. 1984)
(“[T]here is no due process violation if a prisoner,
who is falsely accused of charges, is given an adequate state
procedural remedy to challenge the accusations”).
Further, the failure of prison officials to follow prison
rules or regulations does not amount to a violation of the
plaintiff's constitutional rights. Jackson v.
Cain, 864 F.3d 1235, 1252 (5th Cir. 1989).
an inmate does not have a constitutional right to have his
prison disciplinary or administrative proceedings properly
investigated, handled, or favorably resolved, Mahogany v.
Miller, 252 F.App'x. 593, 595 (5th Cir. 2007), and
there is no procedural due process right inherent in such a
claim. As stated by the United States Court of Appeal for the
Fifth Circuit in Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th
Cir. 2005) (in the context of the handling of an
Insofar as [the plaintiff] seeks relief regarding an alleged
violation of his due process rights resulting from the prison
grievance procedures, the district court did not err in
dismissing his claim as frivolous…[The plaintiff] does
not have a federally protected liberty interest in having
these grievances resolved to his satisfaction. As he relies
on legally nonexistent interest, any alleged due process
violation arising from the alleged failure to investigate his
grievances is indisputably meritless. Id. at 373-74.
conclusion is equally applicable in the context of prison
disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., Sanchez v.
Grounds, 2014 WL 1049164, *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2014)
(finding that an inmate's claim regarding a failure to
conduct a “proper investigation” of a
disciplinary charge “did not amount to a constitutional
deprivation”); and Jackson v. Mizell, 2009 WL
1792774, *7 n.11 (E.D. La. June 23, 2009) (noting that