United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS
Guirola, Jr. Chief U.S. District Judge.
matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of
dismissal. Plaintiff William Randall Edmonson, Jr., an inmate
of the Mississippi Department of Corrections
("MDOC"), brings this pro se Complaint seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief Edmonson is proceeding
in forma pauperis. See Order .
named Defendants are: Kenny Woo, parole/probation officer
with MDOC; Lisa Herndon, case worker at the South Mississippi
Correctional Institution ("SMCI"); Laura Tilley,
Inmate Legal Assistance Program Director at SMCI; Juarita
Evans, classification officer at SMCI; Andrew Mills, Warden
at SMCI; Timothy Barnes, Deputy Warden at SMCI; J. Banks,
Superintendent of SMCI; and Marshall Fisher, former
Commissioner of MDOC. The Court, having liberally construed
Edmonson's Complaint in consideration with the applicable
law, finds that this case should be dismissed.
complains that MDOC has incorrectly placed an absconding
charge in his prison file. Edmonson claims that as a result,
MDOC is not classifying him properly because he is not
allowed to be housed at a community work center, which would
be closer to his family, and he is not earning the sentence
credits he would be earning if he was housed in a community
work center. (Compl. 8, ECF No. 1). Edmonson also complains
about the delays in obtaining documents and responses to his
grievances filed with the prison administrative remedy
program related to these issues. (Mot. 3-5, ECF No. 11).
brings this Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
monetary damages and an order directing MDOC to either
release him from incarceration or award him a classification
status that allows him to be housed at a community work
center and award him sentence credits he would have earned if
he would have been housed at a community work center. (Compl
10, ECF No. 1).
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (as
amended), applies to prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis,
and provides that "the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that. . . (B) the action or
appeal - (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief." Since Edmonson is proceeding in forma pauperis,
his Complaint is subject to the case-screening procedures set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2).
request for MDOC to calculate his sentence to include
sentence credits he would have earned if he was housed in a
community work center would result in Edmonson receiving an
earlier release from incarceration. This request along with
Edmonson's request for release from incarceration must be
pursued through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding
habeas corpus is "sole federal remedy" for
inmate's challenge to the duration of his confinement
seeking immediate release or a speedier release from
imprisonment); Jackson v. Torres, 720 F.2d 877, 879
(5th Cir. 1983) (reiterating that challenge to duration of
prisoner's confinement is a habeas corpus matter).
Therefore, Edmonson's claims for specific sentence
credits and release from incarceration will be dismissed
without prejudice to Edmonson's pursuit of these claims
in a habeas corpus case.
is also asking this Court to direct MDOC to award him a
classification status that allows him to be housed at a
community work center closer to his family. The
classification of prisoners is well within the broad
discretion of prison officials and should be "free from
judicial intervention." McCord v. Maggio, 910
F.2d 1248, 1250-51 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). An
inmate simply does not have a "constitutionally
protected interest in either a custodial classification or
the possibility of earning good-time credits."
Thomas v. Jordan, No. 07-60071, 2008 WL 4649095, *1
(5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2008) (citing Neals v. Norwood,
59 F.3d 520, 533 (5th Cir. 1995)). Furthermore, an inmate
"has no constitutional right to be placed in the penal
facility of his choice." Fuselier v. Mancuso,
354 F.App'x 49, 49 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983)). MDOC's
failure to award Edmonson a specific custodial classification
or house him in a community work center does not violate his
constitutional rights. Thus, Edmonson fails to state a claim
for § 1983 relief.
extent Edmonson is claiming his constitutional rights were
violated by delayed or a lack of responses to his grievances
within the prison administrative remedy program, his claims
are legally frivolous. An inmate does not have a federally
protected liberty interest in having a prison grievance
investigated or resolved to his satisfaction. Geiger v.
Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore,
an inmate does not suffer a constitutional violation when his
grievance is refused or when he is not allowed to participate
in the grievance process. Mahogany v. Miller, 252
F.App'x 593, 595 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Morris v.
Cross, 476 F.App'x 783, 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (finding
inmate's claims regarding grievance process were properly
dismissed as frivolous).
Court has considered the pleadings and applicable law. For
the reasons stated, Edmonson's habeas corpus claims will
be dismissed without prejudice and Edmonson's § 1983
claims will be dismissed as frivolous and for his failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(h). Lastly, any state law
claims Edmonson may be asserting will be dismissed without
THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Edmonson's habeas