Lopez v. Thomas

Background

Andrew Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had ordered service on his excessive-force claim. It had dismissed without prejudice his claims concerning a prison disciplinary hearing and punishment under Heck v. Humphrey because he had been assessed a loss of time credits. The court had told Lopez that he could pursue money damages on those claims if the disciplinary finding were reversed or expunged.

Lopez filed the motion at Docket No. 6, asking the court to rule on his Equal Protection claims and arguing that Heck did not apply. He contended that, because he was serving an indeterminate life sentence, restoring time credits would not result in an earlier release.

Disciplinary-hearing and due-process claims

The court agreed that Heck did not bar Lopez’s claims concerning the disciplinary hearing. However, it noted that it had previously discussed the protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell and that Lopez had not described a violation of those protections, even though he had been allowed to amend his complaint.

The court also applied the rule that revocation of good-time credits must be supported by “some evidence” in the record. That standard is met when there is evidence from which the disciplinary decision could be reached; the court need not review the entire record, independently assess witness credibility, or reweigh the evidence. The court found that, although Lopez disputed the defendants’ interpretation of the evidence, some evidence supported the finding of guilt. It therefore dismissed Lopez’s Due Process claims.

Equal Protection claims

The court explained that the Equal Protection Clause generally requires similarly situated people to be treated alike. For a prisoner comparing his treatment with another prisoner’s treatment, he must allege that he was treated in an intentionally unfairly different way and identify the relevant group of prisoners.

Lopez alleged that another inmate was found not guilty at a different disciplinary hearing involving the same evidence. The court held that the other inmate’s different result, by itself, was insufficient to state an Equal Protection claim. Lopez alleged that both he and the other inmate were Hispanic, but he did not provide allegations supporting an Equal Protection violation.

The court also held that Lopez could not proceed on an Equal Protection theory based on the excessive-force allegations. Lopez alleged that D. C. Thomas responded to an altercation involving Lopez and another inmate by hitting Lopez with a baton and causing injuries. The court found that these allegations were insufficient to state an Equal Protection violation. This ruling addressed the Equal Protection theory and did not dismiss the previously allowed excessive-force claim itself.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis Hamilton granted Lopez’s motion to review the claims. The court dismissed the Due Process claims and the Equal Protection claims for the reasons stated in the order.