Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 F. App'x 306

Mack v. Carter

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided June 21, 2002

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-06-21

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Sandin v. Conner · Bellamy v. Bradley · Forrest Zayne Brown, Stephen Michael Richmond, Christopher Michael Croft, and Tony Lynn Meadows v. Alan Bargery

Decided 2002-06-21

¶1 ORDER

¶2Clydell Mack, an Ohio state prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

¶3Mack filed this action against the warden and the acting deputy warden of his place of confinement. His complaint alleged that, on January 4, 2001, he was beaten with a baton by a corrections officer while restrained in shackles and belly chains. He was subsequently found guilty of fighting the officer and placed in punitive segregation for six months. His complaint was that the named defendants had approved his conviction and disciplinary placement, and had approved other allegedly frivolous misconduct reports against him. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because the named defendants could not be held hable on the basis of respondeat superior. This appeal followed.

¶4Upon consideration, we conclude that the order dismissing this complaint for failure to state a claim must be affirmed, as the record shows that Mack could prove no facts which would entitle him to relief. Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir.2000).

¶5The district court correctly noted that supervisors cannot be held liable under § 1983 for the alleged misdeeds of their employees, unless they encouraged the subordinates’ misconduct. Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir.1984). A supervisor’s awareness of allegations of unconstitutional conduct and failure to act are not a basis for liability. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.1999).

¶6Furthermore, Mack failed to state a claim of a due process violation in this complaint because he did not allege that he suffered an atypical and significant hardship which would implicate a liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Jones v. Baker, 155 F.3d 810, 812 (6th Cir.1998).

¶7Accordingly, the dismissal of this complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C). Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

/38/fappx/306 · .json · Public domain