Smith v. Cooley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

JEFFERY SANCHEZ SMITH DOCKET NO. 2:24-cv-00644

SECTION P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

KEITH COOLEY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is a civil rights complaint [doc. 8] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by

plaintiff Jeffery Sanchez Smith (“Smith”), who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

matter. Smith is a prisoner in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections and is

currently incarcerated at the Allen Correctional Center in Kinder, Louisiana.

This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court. For the

reasons stated below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the suit be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings the instant civil rights suit against the Allen Correctional Center Warden

Keith Cooley complaining that on November 16, 2023, he and 45 other inmates were called out

for an offender reclass, job change, at which time he was told he would be a “tier walker,” to assist

in preventing suicidal behavior. Doc. 8, p. 3. He complains that the assignment of responsibility

to “incompetent and untrained inmates” is beyond their physical capabilities. Id. at p. 5.

According to the response to his complaint from his Unit Head, plaintiff has been trained

in the Tier Walker Program, as stated in the DOC regulations, and the Allen Correctional Center

follows all departmental regulations. Doc. 8, att. 1, p. 1.

II. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Frivolity Review

Smith has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Accordingly, his

complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte

dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).

A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157

F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would

entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When

determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400

(5th Cir. 1995) (frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (failure to state

a claim).

B. Section 1983

Federal law provides a cause of action against any person who, under the color of state law,

acts to deprive another of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws

of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to hold the defendant liable, a plaintiff must allege

facts to show (1) that a constitutional right has been violated and (2) that the conduct complained

of was committed by a person acting under color of federal law; that is, that the defendant was a

government actor. See West v. Atkins, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2254–55 (1988).

C. Job Assignment

Plaintiff does not have a protected interest in his prison job assignment, as there is no

clearly established constitutional right possessed by convicted prisoners to a particular job

assignment. See Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 2008) ("where an inmate alleged that

a defendant retaliated against him by removing him 'from his job as inmate counsel' and later

transferred him to another prison unit, this was inadequate to support a claim of retaliation, as 'a

prisoner has no constitutionally protected interest in a particular facility or a specific work

assignment.'"); Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding there is no constitutionally

protected interest in a particular facility or a specific work assignment).

Furthermore, prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty or property interests per

se in their prison job assignments. Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1250 (5th Cir.1989). Prison

officials can change an inmate's classification and job assignment for almost any reason or no

reason at all, leaving the inmate with no claim. Id.; see also, Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191,

194 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993). The Constitution does not create a property or liberty interest in prison

employment. Broussard v. Hebert, 56 F.3d 1385, *2 [published in full-text format at 1995 U.S.

App. LEXIS 43369] (5th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's job assignment claim fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

III. CONCLUSION

For reasons stated above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the instant suit be DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the pending Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order (doc. 2) be DENIED as MOOT.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation to

file written objections with the Clerk of Court. Failure to file written objections to the proposed

factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and

Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of receipt shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking

either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429-30

(Sth Cir. 1996).

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in cha 1 of November, 2024.

UNITED STAPES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_4-