Johnson Christopher Jamerson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
698 F. App'x 581
11th Cir.2017Background
- Johnson Jamerson, a Florida inmate proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging a Florida regulation authorizing administrative confinement of inmates who threaten prison security.
- The underlying incident: Jamerson had a dispute with other inmates in the prison library; the librarian summoned security; Jamerson left and then tried to explain to security.
- Security concluded Jamerson threatened prison security and placed him in administrative confinement pending disciplinary proceedings.
- Jamerson was held in administrative confinement for nine days and then released after a disciplinary hearing where charges were dropped.
- The district court dismissed Jamerson’s complaint for failure to state a claim; on appeal he only challenges the constitutionality of Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-602.220(3)(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-602.220(3)(a) creates a liberty interest triggering due process protections | Jamerson: the regulation permits administrative confinement in a way that violates due process | State: the regulation authorizes temporary removal for security pending discipline and does not create an atypical, significant hardship | Court: Regulation does not create a protected liberty interest; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether administrative confinement here was an atypical and significant hardship | Jamerson: nine days in confinement was sufficiently severe to implicate liberty interest | State: temporary confinement pending charges is routine and not atypical | Court: Nine days did not amount to an atypical, significant deprivation; no due process violation shown |
| Whether the process provided by the regulation was constitutionally inadequate | Jamerson: process under the regulation is insufficient | State: Jamerson received a disciplinary hearing within nine days and was released | Court: Process was constitutionally sufficient; no § 1983 claim established |
| Whether Jamerson preserved other constitutional claims on appeal (due process/equal protection claims apart from regulatory challenge) | Jamerson: (did not renew these arguments on appeal) | State: district court dismissal of those claims should stand | Court: Jamerson abandoned those claims on appeal; court declined to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003) (pleading standard on review of a motion to dismiss and construing pro se pleadings)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not raised in brief are waived)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead factual allegations sufficient to state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 requires state action depriving a right)
- Cryder v. Oxendine, 24 F.3d 175 (11th Cir. 1994) (elements for a § 1983 due process claim)
- Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999) (two situations where prisoners have liberty interests requiring due process)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (disciplinary segregation normally does not create a liberty interest)
- Rodgers v. Singletary, 142 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 1998) (two months administrative confinement did not implicate a protected liberty interest)
AFFIRMED.