Filed: Jan. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-12043 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00605-SPM-CAS JOHN C. SPAULDING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONNIE WOODALL, JEREMY JOHNSON, Z. Z. FORD, et al., Defendants - Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (January 6, 2014) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM
Summary: Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-12043 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00605-SPM-CAS JOHN C. SPAULDING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONNIE WOODALL, JEREMY JOHNSON, Z. Z. FORD, et al., Defendants - Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (January 6, 2014) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:..
More
Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12043
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00605-SPM-CAS
JOHN C. SPAULDING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONNIE WOODALL,
JEREMY JOHNSON,
Z. Z. FORD, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 6, 2014)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 2 of 7
John C. Spaulding, a Florida prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his pro se complaint for failure to state a claim before Defendants filed a
responsive pleading. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Spaulding alleges that prison
officials placed him in administrative and disciplinary confinement for over one
hundred days, subjected him to greater restrictions than those faced by the general
prison population or those in segregated confinement, placed him on a special
management meal, and labeled him a sexual predator, all in violation of his liberty
interests without due process of law. We reverse and remand to allow Defendants
the opportunity to respond to Spaulding’s third amended complaint.
I.
While at the Suwannee Correctional Institution on February 20, 2011,
Spaulding was placed in administrative confinement. On March 3, 2011,
Spaulding was sentenced to a thirty day disciplinary confinement. While in
disciplinary confinement, Spaulding was exercising without a shirt and was told by
Corrections Officer Jennings that he would be disciplined. Jennings returned and
placed a magnet and a pink sheet on his cell, thereby labeling him a sexual
predator. The same day, Defendant Johnson told Spaulding that a disciplinary
report would be issued for commission of a lewd and lascivious act, and he would
be placed on a special management meal. That disciplinary report, issued on
March 18, 2011, accused Spaulding of masturbating while staring at a female
2
Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 3 of 7
prison guard. On March 24, 2011, Spaulding denied this accusation at a
disciplinary hearing; he was also denied an opportunity to review video
surveillance from the date of the alleged incident. Spaulding was sentenced to
sixty days additional confinement, thus spending a total of 102 days in segregated
confinement. Also, Spaulding alleges that prison officials imposed more stringent
restrictions on his confinement than those typically imposed in disciplinary
confinement, including a special management meal, revocation of visitation,
telephone, television, and library privileges. Third, as a result of the disciplinary
report, Spaulding’s close management status was upgraded, despite the fact that
another inmate disciplined for the same conduct was not subject to the same
upgrade. Finally, Spaulding alleges that prison officials ignored the hand injury he
received in self-defense from his cell mate, a known gang member.
Proceeding pro se, Spaulding filed a complaint in November 2011, and
subsequently filed an amended complaint on the approved complaint form in
compliance with Northern District of Florida procedure.1 Upon review, the
magistrate judge found that the special management meal did not implicate a
liberty interest, and thus its imposition prior to a hearing did not violate due
process. Second, the magistrate judge construed Spaulding’s claim that he was
1
The Magistrate Judge denied Spaulding’s request for a copy of the documents he submitted
with his original complaint, stating that the court had reviewed said exhibits and they would be
considered incorporated by reference in the amended complaint.
3
Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 4 of 7
falsely labeled a sexual predator as a cruel punishment claim, and dismissed it.
With respect to Spaulding’s claim that he was required to stay in confinement
beyond the sentence imposed, the magistrate judge granted leave for Spaulding to
amend his complaint again. However, Spaulding’s second amended complaint
omitted his claims against Defendant Jennings and the claim that his liberty was
restricted as a result of being labeled a sexual predator. Upon finding that
Spaulding did not present a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the
magistrate judge granted Spaulding leave to file a third amended complaint,
instructing him to only include claims stemming from his disciplinary
confinement. In March 2012, Spaulding filed a third amended complaint,
including allegations about the length and condition of his disciplinary
confinement and deliberate indifference regarding his injured hand.
Upon review, the magistrate judge recommended that Spaulding’s claim be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding that the time
Spaulding spent in disciplinary confinement was not an “excessive” or “atypical”
hardship.2 The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissing Spaulding’s
claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
II.
2
Spaulding insists that this finding ignores the twenty-one additional days of administrative
confinement.
4
Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 5 of 7
We review the district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to
state a claim under § 1915(A) de novo, taking the allegations in the complaint as
true, and using the same standards as govern a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir.
2006). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and should be liberally
construed. Tannenbaum v. U.S.,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
III.
In his appeal, Spaulding argues that state officials deprived him of his
constitutionally protected liberty interests. Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225,
1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (to state a §1983 claim, claimant must allege “(1) a
deprivation of constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state
action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process.”). Spaulding notes that this
court has recognized that Florida prisoners have a liberty interest in remaining in
the general prison population, Sheley v. Dugger,
833 F.2d 1420, 1424 (11th Cir.
1987), and thus assigning a prisoner to disciplinary confinement under conditions
that are “atypical and significant” gives rise to a liberty interest subject to due
process. Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 484,
115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995).
Here, Spaulding argues that the duration and conditions of his confinement were
5
Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 6 of 7
significantly restricted compared to the general prison population, and that this
hardship analysis cannot be dismissed without a factual inquiry. 3
In addition to the liberty interest arising from the extent and nature of his
segregated confinement, Spaulding explains that this court has recognized that
prisoners have a liberty interest in not being branded as a sex offender. See Kirby
v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285, 1291 (11th Cir. 1999). Spaulding argues that he was
deprived of his liberty interest in not being identified as a sexual predator.
Moreover, Spaulding emphasizes that this labeling occurred without notice or a
hearing in violation of the due process required for prisoners facing disciplinary
actions. See Young v. Jones,
37 F.3d 1457, 1459–60 (11th Cir. 1994).
We have a duty to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s assertions to discern
whether there is a basis for relief. Tannenbaum, 148 F.3d at 1263. Construing
Spaulding’s claims broadly, he plausibly alleges that Defendants deprived him of
constitutionally protected liberty interests without due process. However,
Defendants did not submit any responsive pleading prior to the district court’s
dismissal of Spaulding’s third amended complaint. Given the liberal construction
afforded pro se litigants, we reverse and remand this case to the district court in
3
For example, in Wallace v. Hamrick, this court reversed dismissal of prisoner’s complaint
because his allegations of no hot water, ventilation, or opportunity to exercise set forth facts that
might implicate a protected liberty interest. 229 Fed. App’x 827, 830 (11th Cir. 2007).
6
Case: 12-12043 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 7 of 7
order for Defendants to file a responsive pleading to Spaulding’s third amended
complaint.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
7
