Satterwhite v. Small
Satterwhite v. Small
Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 97-20286
(Summary Calendar) _________________
KENNETH LERON SATTERWHITE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VERNICE SMALL; DAVID B BRYANT; R L OTT, Warden; KENT RAMSEY; JOHN E STICE; F E FIGUEROA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (H-95-CV-4694)
January 14, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth L. Satterwhite, Texas prisoner #393238, appeals from
the dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action as frivolous.
Satterwhite contends that the district court erred by dismissing
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. his action as frivolous following the imposition of a partial
filing fee; that prison officials retaliated against him for using
the prison grievance system by filing false disciplinary charges
against him; that he did not receive due process at his
disciplinary hearing; that prison officials conspired to deprive
him of due process at his disciplinary hearing; that a prison
warden retaliated against him for filing the current lawsuit by
transferring him to a different prison unit; and that at his
Spears1 hearing the district court improperly relied on the prison
record and the testimony of a prison official to contradict
Satterwhite’s allegations.
Satterwhite filed his complaint and paid a $30 partial filing
fee before the effective date of the PLRA. He failed, however, to
serve Ramsey and Stice. While the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) allows district courts to dismiss a pauper/prisoner’s
complaint as frivolous at any time despite the payment of a partial
filing fee,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), prior to the PLRA such a
dismissal was not authorized. See Grissom v. Scott,
934 F.2d 656, 657(5th Cir. 1991). We need not determine, however, whether this
provision of the PLRA applies retroactively to Satterwhite because
we may affirm the dismissal on other grounds. See Tyler v. Mmes.
Pasqua & Toloso,
748 F.2d 283, 287(5th Cir. 1984), overruled on
other grounds, Victorian v. Miller,
813 F.2d 718, 724(5th Cir.
1 Spears v. McCotter,
766 F.2d 179(5th Cir. 1985)
-2- 1987); Irving v. Thigpen,
732 F.2d 1215, 1216 n.2 (5th Cir. 1984).
Because Ramsey and Stice remain unserved, we vacate the dismissal
with prejudice and remand to the district court for entry of an
order of dismissal without prejudice. See Marts v. Hines,
117 F.3d 1504, 1506(5th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Kersh v. Derozier,
851 F.2d 1509, 1511-1512(5th Cir. 1988).
Satterwhite contends he was retaliated against for pursuing
prison grievances. He discusses the law he believes is relevant to
his argument but discusses no facts relevant to such argument
beyond stating that the motivation of the relevant defendants was
based on his disciplinary hearing and the appeal resulting
therefrom. Satterwhite has failed to adequately brief this issue.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748(5th Cir. 1987).
Satterwhite’s punishment of 15 days solitary confinement and
a reduction in line class did not impose the type of atypical and
significant hardship on Satterwhite in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life that would give rise to a liberty
interest. See Sandin v. Connor,
515 U.S. 472, 484,
115 S. Ct. 2293, 2301,
132 L.Ed.2d 418(1995). Satterwhite has failed to
state a due process claim regarding his disciplinary hearing.
Satterwhite contends that the defendants conspired to violate
his rights during and after his disciplinary hearing, but he offers
no detailed factual arguments in his appellate brief. He has
-3- failed to adequately brief the issue for appeal. See Brinkmann,
813 F.2d at 748.
Satterwhite’s allegations against the prison warden do not
give rise to a plausible inference of retaliation. Satterwhite did
not name the warden as a defendant in his initial complaint, and
none of the warden’s actions was at issue. Satterwhite was
transferred to another prison unit before he called the warden’s
actions into question in his supplemental complaint. The
chronology alleged by Satterwhite does not give rise to an
inference of retaliation, and Satterwhite has made no other
allegations giving rise to such an inference. Satterwhite has
failed to state a claim of retaliation against the warden. See
Woods v. Smith,
60 F.3d 1161, 1166(5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
sub nom, Palermo v. Woods,
116 S. Ct. 800,
133 L.Ed.2d 747(1996).
Because Satterwhite has failed to brief two of his appellate issues
and because he failed to state a claim regarding his other issues,
the dismissal of his complaint is affirmed except as to Ramsey and
Stice.
AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.
-4-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished