Everett v. Cottrel

E.D. Arkansas

Everett v. Cottrel

DecidedAugust 17, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00176

StatusUnknown

This text of Everett v. Cottrel (Everett v. Cottrel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Everett v. Cottrel, (E.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER EVERETT ADC #152664 PLAINTIFF

No. 3:20-cv-176-DPM

CANTRALL, Disciplinary Officer, NCU; JUSTIN PETERS, Appeals Officer, NCU; NURZUHUL FAUST, Warden, NCU; DEXTER PAYNE, Director, ADC; VICKEY HAYCOX, Executive Assistant, ADC; TERRIE BANISTER, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; KEITH WADDLE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; and DOE, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator ADC DEFENDANTS

ORDER On de novo review, the Court partly adopts the recommendation, Doc. 6, and partly sustains Everett’s objections, Doc. 7. Everett claims that Defendants denied him procedural due process by forging a waiver form and excluding him from his disciplinary proceeding. The Court agrees that Everett can’t pursue compensatory damages or expungement for this alleged due process violation. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Those types of relief both necessarily suggest that Everett was harmed because the result of Everett's disciplinary proceeding was invalid. Those claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Not all types of relief would necessarily imply that Everett's disciplinary conviction and punishment were wrong, though. For example, an award of nominal damages or prospective injunctive relief for the claimed procedural violation—excluding Everett from the hearing would not necessarily imply that the hearing’s result was | wrong. This would be a claim “for using the wrong procedures, not for reaching the wrong result[.]” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482-83 (1994); see also Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978); Edwards, U.S. at 648. Though they are not precedent, some unpublished cases from other Circuits make this distinction. Cox v. Clark, 321 F. App’x 673, 676-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished memorandum opinion); Collier v. Dragoo, 153 F.3d 726 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished per curiam opinion). Construing Everett's complaint liberally, he may therefore proceed with his due process claim for those limited forms of relief. The Court returns the case to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. So Ordered.

SPrvenstell D.P. Marsnati jr. United States District Judge 17 feat. 2020

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER EVERETT ADC #152664 PLAINTIFF

No. 3:20-cv-176-DPM

CANTRALL, Disciplinary Officer, NCU; JUSTIN PETERS, Appeals Officer, NCU; NURZUHUL FAUST, Warden, NCU; DEXTER PAYNE, Director, ADC; VICKEY HAYCOX, Executive Assistant, ADC; TERRIE BANISTER, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; KEITH WADDLE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; and DOE, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator ADC DEFENDANTS

ORDER On de novo review, the Court partly adopts the recommendation, Doc. 6, and partly sustains Everett’s objections, Doc. 7. Everett claims that Defendants denied him procedural due process by forging a waiver form and excluding him from his disciplinary proceeding. The Court agrees that Everett can’t pursue compensatory damages or expungement for this alleged due process violation. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). Those types of relief both necessarily suggest that Everett was harmed because the result of Everett's disciplinary proceeding was invalid. Those claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Not all types of relief would necessarily imply that Everett's disciplinary conviction and punishment were wrong, though. For example, an award of nominal damages or prospective injunctive relief for the claimed procedural violation—excluding Everett from the hearing would not necessarily imply that the hearing’s result was | wrong. This would be a claim “for using the wrong procedures, not for reaching the wrong result[.]” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482-83 (1994); see also Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978); Edwards, U.S. at 648. Though they are not precedent, some unpublished cases from other Circuits make this distinction. Cox v. Clark, 321 F. App’x 673, 676-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished memorandum opinion); Collier v. Dragoo, 153 F.3d 726 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished per curiam opinion). Construing Everett's complaint liberally, he may therefore proceed with his due process claim for those limited forms of relief. The Court returns the case to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. So Ordered.

SPrvenstell D.P. Marsnati jr. United States District Judge 17 feat. 2020

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Everett v. Cottrel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-cottrel-ared-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack