Reed v. Early
672 F. App'x 876
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gregory Reed, a Colorado prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint raising multiple claims (Fourteenth, First, Eighth, Fourth Amendments and Ex Post Facto).
- Allegations included wrongful classification as a Bloods/security threat group member, disciplinary convictions (2014, 2016), denial of unit porter job, denial/miscrediting of earned/good-time and presentence credits, repeated urine tests and searches, lockdowns, denial of medical care, restrictions on correspondence, and retaliation for grievances.
- District court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim; Reed appealed.
- District court found: no atypical and significant hardship for due-process liberty interests; no protected interest in discretionary good-time/earned-time credits; time-credit errors must be pursued via habeas; no equal-protection showing of intentional disparate treatment; First Amendment claims lacked required harm or causation; Eighth Amendment allegations insufficient to show serious risk or deliberate indifference; Fourth Amendment searches/testing were not shown unreasonable; Ex Post Facto claim barred by Heck.
- Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, construed pleadings liberally (pro se), but affirmed the dismissal for substantially the same reasons as the district court and denied in forma pauperis status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process — classification and disciplinary sanctions | Reed: misclassification as gang member and disciplinary convictions deprived him of protected liberty interests | Defendants: classification and sanctions did not impose atypical and significant hardship; procedures sufficient | Court: no protected liberty interest shown; dismissal affirmed |
| Due process — earned/good-time & presentence credits | Reed: denial/miscrediting of credits affected parole eligibility and liberty | Defendants: no protected entitlement to discretionary credits; challenges to time credits implicate habeas | Court: no § 1983 relief; credit challenges must be pursued in habeas corpus |
| Equal protection | Reed: he was intentionally treated differently (reclassification, testing, job denial) | Defendants: plaintiff failed to plead facts showing intentional disparate treatment of similarly situated persons | Court: claims dismissed for failure to allege intentional discrimination |
| First Amendment — access, correspondence, retaliation | Reed: restrictions hindered litigation, barred correspondence with brother, and officials retaliated for grievances | Defendants: Reed showed no inability to litigate, correspondence restrictions were reasonable, and no actual retaliation proven | Court: First Amendment claims dismissed for failure to plead required harm or causation |
| Eighth Amendment | Reed: reclassification, lockdowns, and denial of medical care posed safety risks and deliberate indifference | Defendants: allegations do not show objective risk or deliberate indifference or deprivation of minimal necessities | Court: Eighth Amendment claims insufficiently pleaded |
| Fourth Amendment — searches and drug tests | Reed: urine tests and searches were unreasonable invasions | Defendants: testing and searches were reasonable under prison standards | Court: plaintiff failed to show unreasonableness; claims dismissed |
| Ex Post Facto / Heck bar | Reed: habitual-offender conviction violated Ex Post Facto Clause | Defendants: claim would imply invalidity of convictions; barred by Heck | Court: Ex Post Facto claim dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey |
Key Cases Cited
- McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (court need not act as advocate for pro se litigant)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (civil damages claims implying invalidity of conviction are barred until conviction is invalidated)