The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-------------------------------------------------------
:
SHAWN RAMONE WILSON, : CASE NO. 1:21-CV-00538
:
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. : OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. No. 1]
WARDEN DOUGLAS FENDER, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
:
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Shawn Ramone Wilson filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Lake Erie Correctional Institution (“LECI”) Warden Douglas Fender, LECI Unit Manager
Scimenes, LECI Sergeant Mazda, LECI Assistant Warden Tonya Bowser, and Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) Chief Legal Counsel Vencot Brown. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was not given notice of a Rules Infraction Board (“RIB”) hearing
and was therefore unable to present an adequate defense to charges that resulted in loss of good
time credits. He claims he was denied due process. He asks this Court to vacate the decision of
the RIB and restore the good time credit and privileges which were removed as sanctions.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges that on November 16, 2020, he was charged by Corrections Officer Palo
with multiple conduct infractions, including Rule 4 for causing or attempting to cause physical
heavily monitored housing.
Plaintiff alleges that on November 27, 2020, he was brought before the RIB. He told
them he did not know he had been charged with an offense and had not received a conduct
report or notice of the hearing. A member of the RIB printed a copy of the conduct report
which showed that Sergeant Mazda served it on him on November 25, 2020. He disputed
service stating that he was in the medical unit on bed restriction that day. The RIB member told
him they were conducting the hearing as planned and he could appeal if he still wished to
dispute service. Plaintiff claims that without proper notice, he could not call witnesses or
adequately question the officer that brought the charges. He was found guilty of the violation
and sanctioned with loss of good time credit, an increase in his security level and transfer to
another institution.
Plaintiff alleges he appealed the decision to Assistant Warden Bowser. He states she
upheld the RIB decision. He spoke to the Warden and sent a kite. He claims the Warden did
not respond to his communication. Finally, he appealed to the ODRC chief counsel Vencot
Brown. Brown also upheld the RIB decision.
Plaintiff asserts that he was denied due process at the disciplinary hearing. He asks this
Court to vacate the decision of the RIB, review the file and the evidence, and restore his good
time credit, lower his security classification, and expunge his record.
II. Standard of Review
Although the Court does not hold pro se pleadings to the same standard as those filed by
attorneys, the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)
2
or fact.1 A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is based on an unquestionably
meritless legal theory or when the factual allegations are clearly baseless.2 A cause of action
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it does not contain enough facts to
suggest Plaintiff has a plausible claim that entitles him to the relief he seeks.3 This does not
mean a Plaintiff is required to allege the facts of his Complaint in great detail, but he still must
provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”4 A
Complaint that offers only legal conclusions or a simple listing of the elements of a cause of
action will not meet this standard.5 When reviewing the Complaint under § 1915(e), the Court
must read it in a way that is the most favorable to the Plaintiff. 6
III. Analysis
Because the disciplinary hearing resulted in the loss of good time credits which directly
affect the length of Plaintiff’s sentence, he cannot assert this claim in a civil rights action. A
Plainitff cannot proceed with a civil rights action if success in that action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of his confinement or its duration, unless the disciplinary action was
overturned on appeal.7 Plaintiff’s claim of unfair procedures in his disciplinary hearing
necessarily implies the invalidity of the deprivation of good-time credits, and his claim is not
1 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990).
2 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009).
4 Id. at 678.
5 Id.
6 Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
7 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005); Muhammad v. Close,
540 U.S. 749, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304–05, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct.
1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
3
corpus..
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_s/ James S. Gwin________________________
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in
good faith.
4