United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
LEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of
dismissal. Plaintiff Yuri Calzadilla, an inmate of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”),
brings this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The named defendant is Vivian Frazer, a Commander at
the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility. Calzadilla is
proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order
. The court, having liberally construed Calzadilla's
complaint  and response  in consideration with the
applicable law, finds that this case should be dismissed.
states that on February 15, 2016, he was issued a Rule
Violation Report (“RVR”) for possession of major
contraband by defendant Frazer. Calzadilla states that as a
result of this RVR, in August of 2016, his custody level was
reduced and on February 15, 2017, his good-time sentence
credits were taken. Calzadilla also states that he was fired
from his prison job. Calzadilla complains that there should
be a time limit on punishment for this RVR. Calzadilla
further claims that defendant Frazer abused her power and
broke MDOC rules and regulations.
brings this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
restoration of his lost good-time sentence credits and an
order directing MDOC to award him a specific custodial
classification level. Compl  at 6.
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 Calzadilla 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 restoration of lost good-time sentence credits
would result in Calzadilla receiving an earlier release from
incarceration. This request 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,
Calzadilla's claims for restoration of his lost good-time
sentence credits will be dismissed without prejudice to
Calzadilla's pursuit of these claims in a habeas corpus
is also asking this court to direct MDOC to award him a
specific custody level or classification status. 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)). Nor does an inmate have a
constitutionally protected interest in a prison job. See
Bulger v. United States, 65 F.3d 48, 50 (5th
Cir.1995)(finding inmate's loss of prison job did not
implicate a liberty interest even though the inmate lost the
ability to automatically accrue good-time credits).
MDOC's failure to award Calzadilla a specific custodial
classification does not violate his constitutional rights.
Thus, Calzadilla is not entitled to relief under § 1983.
the court finds that to the extent Calzadilla is claiming
that MDOC policy and procedure was violated by the complained
of punishment, he is not entitled to relief under §
1983. These allegations, without more, simply do not rise to
a level of constitutional deprivation. See Guiden v.
Wilson, 244 F. App'x 980, 981 (5th Cir. 2009)
(“A violation of a prison rule by itself is
insufficient to set forth a claim of a constitutional
violation.”) (citing Hernandez v. Estelle, 788
F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir 1986)).
court has considered the pleadings and applicable law. For
the reasons stated, Calzadilla's habeas corpus claims
will be dismissed without prejudice and Calzadilla'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)-(ii).
THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Calzadilla's habeas
corpus claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Calzadilla's §
1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim ...