Davenport vs. Anderson, (5th Cir. 1997)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60439 Summary Calendar CLIFF DAVENPORT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY; JOAN ROSS; ANN L. LEE; JAMES MOSELY; WILLIE BASS; NATHANIEL BOSS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:96-CV-342-D-D December 2, 1997 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Cliff Davenport, Mississippi prisoner #99907, appeals from the district court§ 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Davenport argues that his disciplinary conviction violated his equal protection and due process rights because he was not allowed to present his defense at his disciplinary hearing for unauthorized possession of marijuana, he has a liberty interest in his classification assignments which was violated when his work and housing assignments were changed without regard to the inmate handbook, and his detention in the sally port and loss of personal property for refusing to report for work constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
The district court dismissed DavenportÂ’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was prior to service of process or any Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. The most appropriate authority for such a dismissal is 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In either case, we review the lower courtÂ’s ruling de novo . Applying that standard here, we conclude that no reversible error was committed. The positive drug urinalysis results provided some evidence on which to find him guilty of unauthorized possession of marijuana. Gibbs v. King , 779 F.2d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir. 1986). An inmate has neither a protected property nor liberty interest in his custody classification.
Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472,, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995); Moody v. Baker , 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988).
Placing Davenport in the sally port and taking his personal properly for refusing to work fell within the prison officialsÂ’ authority to discipline him in order to maintain an orderly administration. Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 194 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993); McCord v. Maggio , 910 F.2d 1248, 1250-51 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
No. 97-60439
Sponsored links
This document cites
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 1915 - Sec. 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis
- U.S. Supreme Court - Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Raymundo R. Mendoza, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Maurice Gibbs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John T. King, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 779 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1986)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Clarence Bill Mccord, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ross Maggio, Jr., Defendant-Appellee., 910 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1990)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
