Smithey v. Management Training Corporation, 3:16-cv-00409

Plaintiff Jerry Smithey, an MDOC inmate, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint seeking removal/expungement of a prison RVR (rule violation report) and dismissal of charges against a visitor, Mrs. Martin.
RVR resulted from a phone found in the inmates' restroom after visitation on March 25, 2016; plaintiff alleged a resulting custody classification reduction to C-custody and that the RVR remains on his record.
Plaintiff initially alleged an 18-month loss of privileges/visitation as punishment but later conceded that punishment was not enforced; he still seeks expungement and relief regarding Mrs. Martin.
Court screened the in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and ordered plaintiff to show cause; plaintiff explained medical issues but did not allege the RVR has been invalidated.
Court concluded plaintiff lacks a protected liberty interest in visitation, privileges, custody classification, or grievance processing, and that expungement claims are barred by Heck unless the disciplinary finding has been invalidated.
Case dismissed with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim; dismissal counts as a PLRA "strike."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RVR and resulting custody change implicate due process	Smithey: disciplinary finding and classification reduction deprived him of due process and merits expungement	Defendants: loss of privileges and classification changes do not create a protected liberty interest; Heck bars relief until invalidated	Court: No protected liberty interest for these changes; Heck bars § 1983 expungement claim until disciplinary finding invalidated
Whether loss/restriction of privileges (including visitation) gives rise to constitutional claim	Smithey: loss of privileges (claimed 18 months) harmed rights	Defendants: restrictions are conditions of confinement, not protected liberty interests	Court: Loss/restrictions do not implicate due process; no claim
Whether inmate has constitutional right to a particular custody classification	Smithey: classification was reduced to C-custody and is actionable	Defendants: no constitutional right to specific classification	Court: No constitutional right to particular classification; claim frivolous
Whether plaintiff may sue on behalf of Mrs. Martin for alleged threats/charges	Smithey: seeks dismissal of charges against Mrs. Martin	Defendants: plaintiff lacks standing to assert another person’s constitutional claims	Court: Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of Mrs. Martin; claim dismissed

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest analysis focuses on atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary prison life)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claims implying invalidity of conviction or confinement barred until conviction is invalidated)
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (Heck doctrine applies to claims seeking expungement of disciplinary findings)
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) (no constitutional right to a particular prison classification)
Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 1997) (loss of privileges does not implicate due process)
Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 1999) (no constitutional right to visitation privileges)
Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005) (no protected liberty interest in having grievances investigated)
Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1992) (frivolous standard for § 1915 screening)
Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 1996) (Heck-barred claims should be dismissed with prejudice until conditions met)