Click Back Button to Return to Publication
ERIC WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD CAMPBELL, Commissioner
of Tennessee Department of Corrections; JOHN ROLLINS, I.A., STSRCF; JIM ROSE,
Asst. Commissioner, T.D.O.C.; JAMES BOWLEN, Warden, STSRCF, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-5104
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
August 12, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE
COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS
REPRODUCED.
Before: SUHRHEINRICH and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; LITTLE, District
Judge. *
* The Honorable F. A.
Little, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana,
sitting by designation.
Eric Williamson, a Tennessee
prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court summary judgment for the
defendants in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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).
Seeking equitable and monetary
relief, Williamson sues several officials and employees of the Tennessee
Department of Corrections ("TDOC") claiming that he has been denied
due process by the defendants due to their discriminatory actions of placing
derogatory and false information in his prison file following an investigation
for an escape attempt. He also claims that his right to equal protection of the
laws was violated when he was subjected to racial discrimination by the
defendants removing the alleged derogatory and false information from the files
of white inmates, returning white inmates to the Annex after the investigation,
and denying African American inmates the same benefit. Williamson filed a
motion to amend his complaint contending that he was subjected to a retaliatory
transfer, which the district court denied because Williamson failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies.
The
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Williamson's claims and
Williamson responded. In a memorandum filed November 21, 2001, the district
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. This timely appeal
followed.
Upon de novo review, see Brooks
v. Am. Broad. Cos., 932 F.2d 495, 500 (6th Cir. 1991), we affirm the judgment
essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum
filed November 21, 2001, with the exception of the equal protection claim. Williamson's equal protection
claim is that he was not returned to the Annex upon the completion of the
escape attempt investigation because of his race. While this claim was
not exhausted because Williamson failed to grieve this claim through the prison
grievance system, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,
740-41, 149 L. Ed. 2d 958, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001); Lavista v. Beeler, 195 F.3d
254, 256 (6th Cir. 1999), exhaustion is not necessary because the claim is [*695] facially
frivolous. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2). Williamson admits in his pleadings that
he did not want to be returned to the Annex upon the completion of the escape
attempt investigation. Accordingly, Williamson's equal protection claim is
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2).
The
defendants carried their initial burden of establishing an absence of evidence
to support Williamson's claim regarding the placement of false and derogatory
information in his inmate file. See Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986).
It is undisputed that Williamson's file does not contain any information
regarding an alleged attempt escape from Southeast Tennessee Regional
Correctional Facility.
Finally, the defendants were
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Williamson's due process claim
because Williamson has no constitutional right to be confined in a particular
institution or to enjoy a certain classification. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46,
75 L. Ed. 2d 813, 103 S. Ct. 1741 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225,
49 L. Ed. 2d 451, 96 S. Ct. 2532 (1976); Beard v. Livesay, 798 F.2d 874, 876 (6th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, Williamson's
transfer from the Annex to the main compound during the investigation is simply
an ordinary incident of prison life which does not implicate an inmate's
protected liberty interest. See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418, 115 S. Ct. 2293
(1995).
The remaining arguments on appeal are without merit.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule
34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.