United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of
dismissal. Plaintiff Charles Edward Naylor, an inmate of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”),
brings this pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, seeking injunctive relief. Naylor is proceeding in
forma pauperis. See Order .
named Defendants are: MDOC; Michelle Holloway, Case Manager
at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution
(“SMCI”); Angie Holloway, Assistant Warden at
SMCI; and Joseph Robert, SMCI Offender Services. The Court,
having liberally construed Naylor's Complaint and
Response  in consideration with the applicable law, finds
that this case should be dismissed.
complains that MDOC changed his custody classification level
without a meeting or hearing violating his Due Process
rights. Naylor claims that he meets all of the criteria for
placement in a community work center or participation in a
county work program, which he claims would be discovered if
MDOC policy and procedure were followed.
also complains about the lack of responses to his grievances
filed with the prison administrative remedy program related
to this issue. Applying a liberal construction to
Naylor's pleadings, he is seeking an order directing MDOC
to award him a classification level that allows his placement
in a community work center or participation in a county work
program and any other benefits associated with such a
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 Naylor is proceeding
in forma pauperis, his Complaint is subject to the
case-screening procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915
is asking this Court to direct MDOC to award him a
classification level that allows his placement in a community
work center or involvement in a county work program. 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 Fed.Appx. 49, 49 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983)). MDOC's
failure to award Naylor a specific custodial classification
level or house him in a community work center does not
violate his constitutional rights. Thus, Naylor fails to
state a claim for § 1983 relief.
addition, the Court finds that to the extent Naylor is
claiming that the failure to award him a specific
classification level or house him in a community work center
violates MDOC policy and procedure, he is not entitled to
relief under § 1983. These allegations, without more,
simply do not rise to a level of a constitutional
deprivation. See Guiden v. Wilson, 344 Fed.Appx.
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)).
to the extent Naylor is claiming his constitutional rights
were violated by 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
Fed.Appx. 593, 595 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Morris v.
Cross, 476 Fed.Appx. 783, 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (finding
inmate's claims regarding grievance process were properly
dismissed as frivolous).
in the event Naylor is seeking sentence credits that may be
commensurate with a specific classification level or
placement in a community work center, this would result in
Naylor receiving an earlier release from incarceration. Any
request for a speedier 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). Therefore, to the extent Naylor is seeking
sentence credits, his request will be dismissed without
prejudice to Naylor's pursuit of these claims in a habeas
Court has considered the pleadings and applicable law. For
the reasons stated, any possible habeas corpus claims Naylor
may be asserting are dismissed without prejudice and
Naylor's § 1983 claims are dismissed as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim upon ...