Bibbs v. Williams

Background

Carl E. Bibbs, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Hal Williams and other defendants. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Bibbs alleged that he was improperly found guilty of seven disciplinary violations documented in Rules Violation Reports issued from 2013 through 2016.

For several reports, Bibbs alleged that there was insufficient evidence or that required procedures were not followed. He did not identify the punishment for each report or state whether he lost good-time credits. He said that one report resulted in the loss of visits and other privileges. Bibbs also alleged that, for each report, a correctional lieutenant directed him to see a clerk. According to Bibbs, the clerk said that a report would not appear on his record if he obtained a $200 cash card. Bibbs alleged that he could not afford the card and that the defendant told him he would continue receiving write-ups. He sought expungement of the reports and money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or employees. The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual information to make a claim plausible and that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court explained that a prisoner may have a protected liberty interest when discipline creates an atypical and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life or inevitably affects the length of the sentence. If such an interest exists, due process generally requires specified procedures, including notice, time to prepare, a written decision, and a limited opportunity to present witnesses and evidence. A disciplinary decision must also have some reliable evidentiary support.

The court found that Bibbs had not provided enough information to determine whether the punishments imposed protected liberty interests or whether he lost good-time credits. The court also stated that several challenges to the reports appeared to be outside the applicable limitations period, even assuming a four-year period. If Bibbs sought a faster release from prison based on lost credits, the court noted that he might need to use a petition challenging his confinement rather than a civil-rights complaint.

The court described the bribery allegations as troubling but concluded that, as presented, they did not state a federal claim. Bibbs had not identified, and the court had not found, authority establishing that the alleged solicitation of a bribe violated a federal right. The court said Bibbs should explain why the allegations state a federal claim; otherwise, he could seek relief on that issue in state court. The court also directed him to provide more information if he contended that a biased decisionmaker decided his hearings, including information about the hearings, the defendants’ actions and roles, and any loss of time credits.

Disposition

The court dismissed the entire complaint with leave to amend. It required any amended complaint to include all claims Bibbs wished to pursue because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and may not incorporate the original pleading by reference. The opinion states that failure to file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of the case. It also states that Bibbs was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.