James Alexander v. Frank Elo and Herbert Grinage

Sixth Circuit

James Alexander v. Frank Elo and Herbert Grinage

831 F.2d 293, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13925, 1987 WL 38729

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1987

Docket87-1345

StatusUnpublished

This text of 831 F.2d 293 (James Alexander v. Frank Elo and Herbert Grinage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Alexander v. Frank Elo and Herbert Grinage, 831 F.2d 293, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13925, 1987 WL 38729 (6th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

831 F.2d 293

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
James ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Frank ELO; and Herbert Grinage, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 19, 1987.

Before WELLFORD and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges, and HIGGINS, District Judge.*

ORDER

This pro se Michigan prisoner appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights action. Upon consideration of the record and briefs submitted by the parties, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest in a second formal hearing prior to placement in administrative segregation. See Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir.1985); Custer v. Marquette Prison Warden, 128 Mich.App. 524, 340 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Mich.Ct.App.1983). Even assuming a vested liberty interest, we conclude that plaintiff failed to assert a procedural due process violation as plaintiff did not plead and prove that state remedies were inadequate to redress this alleged random and unauthorized action in contravention of state law. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). Plaintiff also failed to state a cognizable substantive due process violation. See Parratt, 451 U.S. at 536.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Thomas A. Higgins, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, sitting by designation

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

831 F.2d 293

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
James ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Frank ELO; and Herbert Grinage, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 19, 1987.

Before WELLFORD and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges, and HIGGINS, District Judge.*

ORDER

This pro se Michigan prisoner appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights action. Upon consideration of the record and briefs submitted by the parties, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest in a second formal hearing prior to placement in administrative segregation. See Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir.1985); Custer v. Marquette Prison Warden, 128 Mich.App. 524, 340 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Mich.Ct.App.1983). Even assuming a vested liberty interest, we conclude that plaintiff failed to assert a procedural due process violation as plaintiff did not plead and prove that state remedies were inadequate to redress this alleged random and unauthorized action in contravention of state law. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). Plaintiff also failed to state a cognizable substantive due process violation. See Parratt, 451 U.S. at 536.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Thomas A. Higgins, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 F.2d 293, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13925, 1987 WL 38729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-alexander-v-frank-elo-and-herbert-grinage-ca6-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack