Mackey v. Collins

Background

Michael Mackey, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against C. Collins and other prison staff. He alleged staff misconduct and inhumane prison conditions involving C. Collins, D. Farez, Lieutenant T. Teixeira, and Captain J. Arnold on April 14, 2021. He also alleged that he was threatened and issued a rules-violation report after he sought to leave the Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Program. He stated that he was found not guilty of a report issued on April 14, 2021, but later received another report from Collins on August 7, 2022. He requested an investigation, favorable rulings on the reports, discipline for the officers, and expungement of the report.

Screening and analysis

Because Mackey sought relief from government officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a Section 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court also said that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court found that Mackey’s reliance on In re Harrell and Bounds v. Smith did not match his allegations because those cases concerned prisoners’ access to legal materials, legal assistance, or the courts. Mackey did not allege that the defendants denied him access to the courts.

The court held that the challenge to the April 14, 2021 rules-violation report did not state a valid claim because Mackey was found not guilty and received no sanctions. As to the August 7, 2022 report, the court stated that Mackey could challenge it only after the disciplinary proceedings ended and he exhausted available administrative remedies. The court noted that he could not have completed that process when he filed the complaint on the same day the report was issued. The court further stated that a future claim concerning that report would require allegations that Mackey was found guilty, denied the procedural protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell, and suffered a sufficiently serious deprivation under Sandin v. Conner.

The court also found that Mackey’s general allegations did not provide enough facts connecting Collins, Farez, Teixeira, and Arnold to a constitutional violation. The only specific allegations concerned Collins’s issuance of the rules-violation report, and the court found those allegations insufficient for the reasons described above.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Mackey was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. The court explained that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action. The court also ordered the Clerk to send Mackey two copies of the complaint form. If Mackey failed to comply with the order, the action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice.