Curtis Evans v. Marshall Fisher, Commissioner, et
669 F. App'x 259
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Curtis Chrishaun Evans, a Mississippi prisoner, sued Commissioner Marshall Fisher and Warden N. Hogan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after being found guilty of a prison rule violation and losing privileges for 30 days.
- Evans alleged violations of due process and equal protection based on the disciplinary finding and denial of his administrative appeal.
- The district court ordered Evans to supplement his complaint; his response merely asserted that supervisory officials failed to prevent rights violations and declined his appeal.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, reasoning that loss of privileges does not implicate due process and Evans’ equal protection claim was conclusory.
- The district court denied Evans leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, finding the appeal was not taken in good faith (frivolous).
- The Fifth Circuit denied Evans’ IFP motion on appeal and dismissed the appeal as frivolous, warning that Evans now has at least two PLRA strikes and that future dismissals will bar IFP status absent imminent danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of privileges from a prison disciplinary finding implicates due process | Evans: disciplinary finding and sanctions violated his due process rights | Defendants: loss of privileges is a change in conditions, not a protected liberty interest | Court: No due process violation; loss of privileges does not trigger due process (dismissal warranted) |
| Whether denial of appeal and supervisory inaction supports § 1983 liability | Evans: Fisher and Hogan failed to protect his federal rights by denying his appeal | Defendants: supervisory denial and bare allegations insufficient to show constitutional violation | Court: Conclusory supervisory allegations insufficient; fails to state an equal protection or § 1983 claim |
| Whether Evans stated an equal protection claim | Evans: alleged Equal Protection Clause violation generally | Defendants: bare belief of discrimination is inadequate | Court: Dismissed; plaintiff’s bare assertion does not plead discriminatory intent |
| Whether appeal may proceed IFP (good-faith requirement) | Evans: did not contest frivolousness—argued only on his financial status | Defendants/District court: appeal is frivolous, so not in good faith | Court: Denied IFP and dismissed appeal as frivolous; warned of PLRA strikes |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2001) (defines frivolous appeals as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 1997) (loss of privileges is a change in conditions not implicating due process)
- Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 1995) (prisoner cannot rely on personal belief of discrimination to state equal protection claim)
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (challenge to IFP certification must address district court’s reasons)
- Robinson v. United States, 812 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2016) (appeal taken in good faith requires an issue arguable on the merits)