Hubbert v. Turner, 4:19-cv-00137

On Jan. 18, 2019, Timothy Hubbert was awakened during a fight in his housing unit and was named by an unknown person as an attacker.
Hubbert received a Rule Violation Report for assaulting an officer, was held in a holding tank (about two weeks) and thereafter placed on long-term lockdown with frequent restrictions on shower and recreation.
The reporting officer testified he could not be sure Hubbert participated; several inmates admitted involvement and said Hubbert did not participate; Hubbert alleges lost grievance documentation and an unqualified hearing officer.
Hubbert was found guilty, his appeal denied, and he was punished by reduced custody classification and loss of all privileges.
Hubbert also alleges prison staff did not allow him to take/store some personal property when moved to lockdown, resulting in loss of that property.
Hubbert sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process re disciplinary finding and sanctions	Hubbert: guilty finding was improper because officer could not identify him; co-inmates exonerated him; grievance process flawed	Sanctions (custody reduction, loss of privileges) are within expected sentence parameters and do not create a protected liberty interest	Applying Sandin, sanctions are not "atypical and significant"; no due process claim; dismissal affirmed
Taking of property without due process	Hubbert: property was not taken to lockdown and was lost; he was deprived of property without process	Under Parratt/Hudson, random/unauthorized deprivation by state actors does not violate due process if an adequate post-deprivation state remedy exists; MTCA may limit suits but state constitutional remedies apply	State law (Mississippi Constitution as interpreted in Johnson/Pickering) provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy; federal due process claim fails; dismissal affirmed

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (establishes "atypical and significant hardship" test for prison liberty interests)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (procedural protections required when protected liberty interests are implicated)
Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (loss of commissary privileges and cell restriction do not create due process liberty interest)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (random/unauthorized deprivation of property by state actor is not a due process violation if state provides adequate post-deprivation remedy)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (same principle regarding post-deprivation remedies)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (limits on negligence-based due process claims)
Martin v. Dallas County, Tex., 822 F.2d 553 (applying Parratt/Hudson in Fifth Circuit)
Pickering v. Langston Law Firm, P.A., 88 So.3d 1269 (state constitutional remedies cannot be circumvented by statute)
Johnson v. King, 85 So.3d 307 (Miss. Ct. App. holding that confiscation of inmate property violated Mississippi Constitution and required replacement or compensation)