Plummer v. Riley
2:15-cv-00016
D.S.C.May 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Plummer, a South Carolina state prisoner, filed a § 1983 suit alleging due process violations arising from disciplinary proceedings at Tyger River Correctional Institution.
- First disciplinary hearing (Feb 11, 2013) found Plummer guilty of participation in unauthorized inmate organization activity and listed a 60‑day loss of good time credit among sanctions; the ALC later remanded for rehearing.
- Second hearing (Dec 20, 2013), before DHO Glidewell, again found Plummer guilty and imposed 60 days loss of good time; Plummer alleged the hearing recording was cut/erased.
- Plummer appealed administratively to Defendant Powe and Warden Riley; Step 2 ultimately reversed the second conviction (Sept 2014) because the recording was incomplete and directed reinstatement of 60 days good time.
- SCDC records as of April 14, 2017, show the charge dismissed and net lost good time = 0 days; administrative notes state the 60 days were never actually deducted.
- District court recommitted the cross‑motions for summary judgment to decide the narrow issue whether a genuine dispute exists about loss of 60 days good time credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plummer lost 60 days statutory good‑time credit due to the disciplinary charge | Plummer contends his good time was taken and not restored, causing a constitutionally protected liberty loss | Defendants assert no net good‑time was lost — either credits were never deducted or were reinstated | Held: No genuine dispute — SCDC records show the charge dismissed and net loss = 0 days, so Plummer did not lose 60 days |
| Whether failure to investigate/handle incomplete recording violated due process in respect to good‑time loss | Plummer argues Powe and Riley failed to fully investigate the incomplete recording, depriving him of due process | Defendants maintain any procedural defect is moot because no good‑time was actually lost | Held: Moot as to good‑time deprivation because no credits were ultimately lost |
| Whether Plummer was denied an opportunity to earn additional good time (20 days) | Plummer claims he was deprived of opportunity to earn 20 days good time because of the charge | Defendants argue prisoners have no constitutional right to the opportunity to earn good‑time credits | Held: Denied — no constitutionally protected liberty interest in opportunity to earn good time credits |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on narrow remanded issue | Plummer seeks summary judgment that he lost 60 days | Defendants seek summary judgment that no loss occurred | Held: Defendants' motion granted; Plaintiff's denied — recommendation to grant summary judgment for defendants on the remanded issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (procedural protections required before depriving inmates of good‑time credits)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine dispute and materiality)
- Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 1998) (elements for § 1983 claim)
- Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001) (personal liability in § 1983 requires individual constitutional violation)
- Gaskins v. Johnson, 443 F. Supp. 2d 800 (E.D. Va. 2006) (summarizing Wolff protections for loss of statutory good time)
- White v. White, 886 F.2d 721 (4th Cir. 1989) (pro se pleadings afforded liberal construction)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (standard for district court review of magistrate judge R&R)