Gathrite v. Diaz

Background

Dee’Angelo Lamar Gathrite, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against R. Diaz and other defendants. The court had allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Gathrite alleged that defendants claimed to have searched his cell and found a weapon and a medical syringe. He said he was never housed in the cell that was searched, yet he received a Rules Violation Report and was found guilty at a later disciplinary hearing. He alleged that he lost access to the phone, canteen, and day room for 60 days.

Legal standards

Because Gathrite is a prisoner suing government-related defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law.

The court explained that prisoners may have a protected liberty interest when prison discipline creates an unusually severe hardship compared with ordinary prison life or inevitably affects the length of the sentence. Prison disciplinary hearings must provide certain basic procedures, including written notice, at least 24 hours to prepare, a written explanation of the evidence and reasons for the decision, an opportunity to call witnesses when appropriate, and legal assistance when the prisoner is illiterate or the issues are legally complex.

The court also explained that a prisoner does not automatically state a § 1983 claim merely by alleging that officials falsely accused him. If the prisoner received constitutionally adequate procedures, a fabricated charge generally is not enough by itself. A false charge may also support a First Amendment retaliation claim if it was punishment for protected conduct and the other elements of retaliation are adequately alleged.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It found that alleging a guilty disciplinary finding based on false evidence was insufficient by itself. Gathrite was instructed to provide more information showing how the 60-day loss of privileges was an atypical and significant hardship and, if the punishment was sufficiently severe, how the disciplinary hearing violated the procedures described above. If he intended to claim retaliation, he also had to identify the earlier protected conduct and explain how the disciplinary incident was retaliatory.

The amended complaint had to be filed within 28 days of the order. It had to use the case caption and civil case number from the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that an amended complaint completely replaces the original, so it must include every claim Gathrite wishes to pursue. Failure to amend within the deadline will result in dismissal of the case. The court also stated that failure to keep the court informed of an address change or comply with orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.