Smith v. Sirwet-Binning

Background

Jason Smith, identified as a state inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at that facility. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state law. The court noted that it would address Smith’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Smith alleged that he received a rules-violation report on January 26, 2018, for refusing assigned housing and delaying a peace officer. At the initial disciplinary hearing, Defendant Greer denied Smith’s request to have witnesses present, found him guilty, and imposed 30 days of lost privileges and 61 days of lost good-time credits. After Smith appealed, the report was reissued and reheard before Defendant White, who also denied witnesses and found him guilty. After another appeal, Defendant Sirwet-Binning conducted a rehearing, again found Smith guilty, and did not grant his witness request. Following another appeal, the report was voided on October 8, 2019; the 61 days of lost good-time or work credits were restored, and Smith was told that no further administrative action would be taken on the report. Smith sought declaratory relief, an order requiring action, and damages.

Court’s Analysis

Because Smith was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to dismiss claims that did not state a claim for relief or sought money from an immune defendant, while reading a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally.

Due process claim. Smith alleged that the denial of witnesses violated procedural due process. The court held that a procedural due-process violation requires a procedural correction, not restoration of a substantive right that the prisoner ultimately did not lose. Because the administrative appeals corrected the alleged error, restored the lost credits, and resulted in the report being voided, the court concluded that Smith failed to state a due-process claim.

Equal protection claim. Smith also alleged that he was denied equal protection because other prisoners were allowed witnesses at their disciplinary hearings. The court concluded that he had not alleged enough facts showing that he belonged to a relevant class of similarly situated prisoners or that his treatment was improperly different from theirs. The court nevertheless gave him one opportunity to amend this claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed Smith’s due-process claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. It dismissed the equal-protection claim with leave to amend and required Smith to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The order stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action. Failure to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice.

Uncertainty

The opinion’s caption identifies the docket as No. 20-05542 BLF (PR), while the conclusion contains a reference to Case No. C 20-05542 BLE (PR). This summary uses the docket number and judge designation from the caption.