Ray v. Bradford, 5:13-cv-00092

Edward V. Ray, Jr., a California state prisoner, proceeding pro se, sues four NFCF staff in OK federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy to separate him from his son and that staff fabricated a disciplinary offense and related write-ups.
Defendants are Mrs. Bradford (unit manager), Ms. Hagerman (chief of security), R. Ferguson (correctional counselor), and c/o Hansen (correctional officer).
Ray alleges various harms including placement in segregation, loss of recreation and good-time credits, and an increased custody level based on a “refusal to house” charge.
Plaintiff asserts four counts: (I) destruction of incoming mail; (II) due process/disciplinary violation and loss of credits; (III) Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment; (IV) due process concerns regarding mail, custody level, and searches.
The motion before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; the magistrate recommends GRANTING the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count I plausibly alleges personal participation	Ray argues defendants’ involvement in mail destruction is unclear due to illegible names.	Bradford, Hagerman, Hansen, and Ferguson did not personally participate; captioned initials are insufficient.	Count I dismissed for lack of personal participation and improper caption.
Whether Count II is barred by Heck/Balisok or premature	Ray contends disciplinary conviction and loss of credits were retaliatory and should be reviewed.	Claims premised on disciplinary disposition are barred unless conviction invalidated; also seeks to show atypical confinement.	Count II dismissed without prejudice unless Ray shows disciplinary conviction overturned within 14 days; otherwise dismissed.
Whether Count III states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim	Ray argues conditions were cruel and unusual and reflect evil motive.	Allegations are conclusory and do not amount to a serious deprivation of necessities.	Count III dismissed as not sufficiently serious under Eighth Amendment standards.
Whether Count IV adequately states a due process claim	Ray asserts due process violations regarding mail destruction, mail notices, and searches.	Conditions are not sufficiently atypical; due process not implicated.	Count IV dismissed as conclusory and not showing atypical/liberty-interest-level conditions.

Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (plausibility standard for pleading in § 1983)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; Twombly and pleading requirements)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (heightened pleading standard)
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (atypical and significant hardship as liberty interest inquiry)
Rezaq v. Nalley, 677 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2012) (narrow liberty interests; when not implicated by conditions, due process not required)
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (U.S. 2004) (exception to Heck when no liberty interest affected; credits case)
Brown v. Cline, 319 F. App’x 704 (10th Cir. 2009) (preclusive dismissal rule for disciplinary-claim viability; non-panel reference)
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2010) (obligation to file timely objections; procedural safeguards)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interests and disciplinary segregation framework)