-SAA Smith v. W.C.C.R.C.F. et al, No. 1:2011cv00113 - Document 7 (N.D. Miss. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 6 Order. Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 06/29/11. (nsm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION DIMERASMITH PLAINTIFF No. l:11CVl13-B-A w.c.c.Rc.F., ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on thepro se prisoner complaint of Dimera Smith, who challenges the conditions ofhis confinement under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. For the purposes the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the of plaintiffwas incarcerated when he filed this suit. Smith alleges that on January 13, 201 I, he was improperly found guilty of a prison rule violation (possession of a cellular telephone) upon hearsay evidence only. For the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcould be granted. No Right to Confrontation of Witnesses in a Prison Disciplinary Proceeding The plaintiff s sole claim is that he was found guilty of a prison rule violation based upon hearsay evidence alone. This allegation, standing alone, does not state a due process claim, as "adequate bases for decision in prison disciplinary cases can be arrived at without cross-examination;' Il'olff v. McDonnell,4lS U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974) (holding that cross-examination is not required in a proceeding to determine whether an inmate lost good time credits). As the plaintiffdid not have the right to confront the witnesses against him - and has not alleged that his punishment rose to the level necessary to trigger due process protections as set forth in Sandin v. Conner,sl5 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct.2293, 132 L. Ed.2d 418 (1995), his claim fails on its face. As sucb, the instant case is DISIMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A final judgpeirt consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today. SO ORDERED, this the 29u dayof lune,20ll.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.