# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · January 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246040

## Case

- **Full name:** Brandon Kennedy v. C. Stack-Investigator, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** January 16, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246040

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDON KENNEDY, : Case No. 2:25-cv-790
:
Plaintiff, :
: District Judge Algenon L. Marbley
vs. : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
:
C. STACK-INVESTIGATOR, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Mansfield Correctional Institution, has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint, and amended complaint, in this Court against defendants Investigator C. Stack and
RIB Chairperson G. Sutton. (See Doc. 3 at PageID 76). Plaintiff has paid the full filing fee.
This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of the amended complaint to determine
whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, § 805, 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).
Screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 3)
A. Legal Standard
A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim
with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989);
see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no legal basis
when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest
which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no factual basis when the
allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton,
504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need not accept as true factual allegations
that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a complaint for frivolousness. Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

Additionally, Congress has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint
filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, however, the
complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (“dismissal
standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under

§§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
The screening procedures established by § 1915 apply to complaints filed by prisoners
against governmental entities, officials or employees regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid
the filing fee, as in this case, or is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a);
Hyland v. Clinton, 3 F. App’x 478, 479 (6th Cir. 2001); Bell v. Rowe, No. 97-4417, 1999 WL
196531, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 1999) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09
(6th Cir. 1997)); see also Fleming v. United States, 538 F. App’x 423, 426 (5th Cir. 2013) (per
curiam) (citing Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1998)); Miller v. Edminsten,
161 F. App’x 787, 788 (10th Cir. 2006); Lewis v. Estes, No. 00-1304, 2000 WL 1673382, at *1
(8th Cir. Nov. 8, 2000) (per curiam) (citing McGore and Seventh and Second Circuit Court
decisions).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all well-pleaded

factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than
an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does
a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.”
Id. at 557. The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).

B. Allegations in the Amended Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in connection with a conduct report
issued against him and resulting Rules Infraction Board (RIB) hearing at the Belmont
Correctional Institution (BECI), where plaintiff was previously located. As detailed below,
plaintiff claims that defendants—Institutional Inspector C. Stack and RIB Chairperson G.
Sutton—conducted an insufficient investigation of the events giving rise to the conduct report,
issued a false conduct report against him, and deprived him of his due process rights in the RIB
hearing. (Doc. 3 at PageID 80-82). Plaintiff also asserts state-law claims, including slander,
defamation of character, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. (Id. at PageID 82).
On August 26, 2024, plaintiff claims he purchased Arm & Hammer laundry detergent
sheets from the commissary at the Southeastern Correctional Institution. (Doc. 3 at PageID 77).
Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to the Trumbull Correctional Institution and, on December
24, 2024, to BECI. According to plaintiff, he was not afforded the opportunity to inspect or
possess his personal property while at Trumbell or upon arriving at BECI.

On December 26, 2024, plaintiff claims an incident report was issued against him based
on Correctional Officer Warrington stating that he found “multiple blue pieces of paper which
seemed to be soaked in an unknown substance.” (Id.). On the same date, plaintiff indicates
defendant Investigator Stack tested the items, resulting in a positive detection for synthetic
cathinones, which plaintiff indicates is a schedule two illegal substance. Plaintiff was placed
into segregation pending an investigation. (Id. at PageID 78). On December 27, 2024, plaintiff
claims Stack wrote a conduct report against him, alleging that he was in possession of $36,000
worth of synthetic cathinones. Plaintiff requested that another lab test be performed at his
expense or that the State Highway Patrol test the items, but his request was denied.

With respect to his RIB hearing, plaintiff claims he was denied the opportunity to prepare
a defense and to access the evidence used against him. He informed RIB Chairperson Sutton
that he was innocent, did not possess any illegal substances, and stated that the test detecting
illegal substances was defective. (Id. at PageID 79). According to plaintiff, Sutton found him
guilty of rule infraction and imposed twenty-nine days of restrictive housing and recommended
a security review.
Following the RIB hearing, plaintiff indicates that his friend and mother both tested the
laundry detergent sheets purchased by plaintiff using the same test utilized by Stack. (Id. at
PageID 79-80). According to plaintiff, his friend’s test came back negative, while the detergent
sheets tested by his mother resulted in a positive detection for synthetic cathinones.
Based on the above factual allegations, plaintiff asserts that defendants violated his due
process rights in connection with the conduct report, investigation, and RIB hearing. He also
asserts state-law claims for slander, defamation of character, abuse of process, and malicious

prosecution. (Id. at PageID 81-82). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and money damages. (Id.
at PageID 82-83).
C. Analysis
Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).
First, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted to the extent
that he claims he was denied due process in the RIB hearing. The Due Process Clause protects
individuals against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” U.S.
CONST. amends. V, XIV. Prisoners subject to disciplinary proceedings, however, are not

entitled to the same “full panoply” of due process rights afforded to criminal defendants during
trial. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). A valid “due process challenge to a prison
misconduct conviction depends on whether the conviction[] implicated any liberty interest.”
Hubbard v. Theut, No. 2:19-cv-52, 2019 WL 1198536, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2019).
Importantly, the Due Process Clause does not protect every change in the conditions of
confinement having an impact on a prisoner. Id. (citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225
(1976)). Rather, “a prisoner is entitled to the protections of due process only when a deprivation
‘will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence’ or imposes an ‘atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Id. (quoting Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486–87 (1995)).
Plaintiff has not alleged that the challenged disciplinary sanction resulted in the
lengthening of his prison sentence, the withdrawal of good-time credits, or in an atypical and
significant hardship. The Sixth Circuit has found that confinement in segregation generally does

not rise to the level of an atypical and significant hardship except “in extreme circumstances,” such
as when a prisoner is subject to an excessively long or indefinite administrative segregation.
Joseph v. Curtin, 410 F. App’x 865, 868 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harden–Bey v. Rutter, 524 F.3d
789, 791–92 (6th Cir.2008)). Cf. Harris v. Caruso, 465 F. App’x. 481, 484 (6th Cir. 2012) (a
prisoner’s 8-year confinement in segregation was of “atypical duration” and presented a
cognizable liberty interest). Assignment to restrictive housing likewise does not implicate a liberty
interest. See Perry v. Erdos, No. 1:22-cv-178, 2022 WL 2256901, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 22, 2022),
report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 3083522 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2022) (“Courts in this
District have expressly held that assignment to extended restrictive housing, ODRC’s most

restrictive security level, does not implicate a due process liberty interest”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, because plaintiff does not have a protected liberty interest under the circumstances
alleged herein, his claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause should be
dismissed.
Plaintiff has also not stated a constitutional claim to the extent he has alleged that
defendants wrote a false conduct report against him or failed to adequately investigate. Erroneous
or even fabricated allegations of misconduct by an inmate, standing alone, do not constitute a
deprivation of a constitutional right. See, e.g., Reeves v. Mohr, No. 4:11cv2062, 2012 WL 275166,
at *2 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2012) (and cases cited therein) (holding that the prisoner failed to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted to the extent that he claimed he had “a constitutional
right to be free from false accusations”). “A constitutional violation may occur, if as a result of an
accusation, the plaintiff was deprived of a liberty interest without due process.” Reeves, supra,
2012 WL 275166, at *2 (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995)). However, as noted
above, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to trigger constitutional concerns because he has not

alleged any facts suggesting that the challenged disciplinary action deprived him of a protected
liberty interest.
Plaintiff has also failed to state an actionable claim for relief based on his allegations of an
inadequate investigation. “There is no statutory or common law right, much less a constitutional
right, to an investigation.” Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Daniels
v. Lisath, No. 2:10-cv-968, 2011 WL 2710786, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 13, 2011). Furthermore, to
the extent that plaintiff claims that the grievance procedure failed to produce the correct outcome,
this cannot give rise to a § 1983 claim because “[p]rison inmates do not have a constitutionally
protected right to a grievance procedure.” Miller v. Haines, No. 97–3416, 1998 WL 476247, at *1

(6th Cir. Aug. 03, 1998) (citations omitted). Prison officials whose only roles “involve their denial
of administrative grievances and their failure to remedy the alleged [unconstitutional] behavior”
cannot be liable under § 1983. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Nor does a
prison official’s alleged failure to adequately investigate claims of misconduct rise to the level of
“encouragement” that would make the official liable for such misconduct. Knop v. Johnson, 977
F.2d 996, 1014 (6th Cir. 1992); Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Therefore,
plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants to the extent
that he claims they failed to investigate.
Finally, having determined that plaintiff’s federal claims should be dismissed against the
named defendants, it is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over plaintiff’s state-law claims and dismiss such claims without prejudice. See Harper v.
AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 210 (6th Cir. 2004) (although the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a matter of discretion, when a court dismisses all federal

claims before trial, it generally should dismiss the state law claims as well).
Accordingly, in sum, it is recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's
federal claims against defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Having recommended that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s federal
claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law
claims and dismiss such claims without prejudice. See Harper, 392 F.3d at 210.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. The Court DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining
state-law claims and DISMISS such claims without prejudice.
3. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an
appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith.
See McGore v. 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served
with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either
side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to,
and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall
respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy
of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit
rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d

947 (6th Cir. 1981).

s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11246040. Public record. Not legal advice.