519 F. App'x 673
11th Cir.2013Background
- Gregory Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed sua sponte dismissal of his Bivens action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
- Smith alleged BOP Program Statement 5800.11(15)(c) creates a liberty interest requiring officials to take steps to ensure accuracy of challenged information.
- He claimed officials deprived him of the liberty interest by not taking reasonable steps before using inaccurate information against him.
- The district court held that the deprivation did not amount to an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin v. Conner and dismissed the claim.
- The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal; oral argument was unnecessary for the affirmance and counsel was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith states a cognizable liberty interest under Bivens. | Smith asserts 5800.11(15)(c) creates a liberty interest requiring accuracy. | Defendants contend the policy does not create a cognizable due-process liberty interest. | No; the deprivation does not constitute an atypical, significant hardship. |
| Whether denial of placement in a less-secure facility constitutes a due-process violation. | The failure to correct information caused placement denial. | Such denial lacks substantial hardship beyond ordinary prison life. | Denied; not an atypical hardship under Sandin. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (establishes atypical and significant hardship standard for due-process claims in prison)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1980) (transfers to a mental hospital can implicate due process)
- Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2003) (applies 12(b)(6)-style review to §1915(e)(2) dismissals)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings; de novo review of sua sponte dismissal)