Dillon v. Penix

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

LUTHER WAYNE DILLON PLAINTIFF ADC #173503

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-00196-KGB

BETSY PENIX, Mail Clerk, Grimes Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is a Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. No. 9). Plaintiff Luther Wayne Dillon has filed objections to the Recommended Disposition and a brief in support of his objections (Dkt. No. 10, 11). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, the objections, the brief, and a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Recommended Disposition as its findings in all respects (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10, 11). The Court writes separately to address Mr. Dillon’s objections and supporting brief. In his objections, Mr. Dillon states that defendant Betsy Penix acted in “reckless disregard of or with callous indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.” (Dkt. No. 10, at 1). Mr. Dillon asserts that Ms. Penix rejected mail addressed to him with a legal return address in violation of “A.D.C. and State” policy (Id.). Mr. Dillon claims that Ms. Penix’s actions violated his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution (Dkt. No. 10). In his brief in support of his objections Mr. Dillon elaborates that, “[p]laintiff being deprived of his legal mail has caused a chain reaction of deprivation of his ‘Liberty Interest.’” (Dkt. No. 11, at 1 (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). As Judge Deere explained in her Recommended Disposition, Mr. Dillon has no liberty interest in having state officers follow state law or prison regulations (Dkt. No. 9, at 3). See Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Court overrules Mr. Dillon’s objections and adopts Judge Deere’s Recommended Disposition in its entirety (Dkt. No. 9). This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Court denies as moot Mr. Dillon’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 12). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is so ordered this 28th day of January, 2021. He shi A. Palir— stine G. Baker United States District Judge