Carmouche v. Hooper
77 F.4th 362
| 5th Cir. | 2023Background
- Carmouche, a Louisiana prisoner, alleged he served roughly 300 days in administrative segregation beyond a 30‑day disciplinary sentence and that the underlying disciplinary conviction was fabricated; he sought damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, concluding the segregation duration was too short to implicate a liberty interest and that equal protection and Eighth Amendment claims failed.
- The magistrate also recommended denying Carmouche leave to amend (including a proposed First Amendment mail claim) as futile and found some claims unexhausted.
- The district court adopted the report and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; Carmouche appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit held the district court erred by applying a supposed two‑and‑a‑half‑year threshold for atypicality, misdocketing Carmouche’s initial letter as a complaint (thus affecting amendment rights), and improperly denying leave to amend; it vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process: liberty interest from prolonged admin segregation | Carmouche: ~300 extra days in segregation under atypical conditions and no periodic review creates a liberty interest | Defs/district court: duration too short to be atypical; no protected liberty interest | Vacated dismissal; no bright‑line 30‑month rule; must apply case‑by‑case Sandin analysis considering duration and conditions; remand for fact development |
| Denial of leave to amend / misdocketing initial filing | Carmouche: initial letter was not a complaint; thus he was entitled to amend as a matter of course and to further leave to add facts/claims | Court treated later filing as an amended complaint and denied leave as futile | Court abused discretion: initial filing was misdocketed and Carmouche should have been permitted to amend; remand to allow factual development |
| Screening dismissal as frivolous under § 1915(e) | Carmouche: allegations present an arguable legal/factual basis and merit factual testing | Magistrate/district court: complaint frivolous or fails to state a claim and should be dismissed with prejudice | Dismissal as frivolous was an abuse of discretion because the wrong legal test was applied; merits to be revisited on remand |
| Equal protection / Eighth Amendment dismissal | Carmouche alleged disparate treatment and harsh conditions (revived in his motions to amend) | Magistrate: allegations insufficiently pleaded / conditions not severe enough | Fifth Circuit did not resolve merits; those claims are revived for reconsideration on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (establishes atypical‑and‑significant‑hardship test for liberty interests)
- Wilkerson v. Goodwin, 774 F.3d 845 (5th Cir.) (discusses duration and atypicality; rejects bright‑line thresholds)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (pro se in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed if they lack an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for failure‑to‑state‑claim review)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (placement that affects parole eligibility can distinguish segregation harms)
- Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192 (admin segregation alone generally not a liberty interest; consider duration and conditions)
- Thompson v. Kentucky Dep’t of Corrs., 490 U.S. 454 (limits on cognizable liberty interests)
- Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for frivolous dismissals under § 1915)
- McDonald v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 1056 (5th Cir.) (in forma pauperis dismissal standards)
- Stokes v. Gann, 498 F.3d 483 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals)
- Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556 (5th Cir.) (deference to prison classification decisions while recognizing limits)