Willie Whitt v. Christine Bradley Fred Rainey Kelly Hadley A

Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Willie Whitt v. Christine Bradley Fred Rainey Kelly Hadley Annie Cutter Kenneth Carroll Daniel Enochs

Citations: 56 F.3d 66; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19045; 1995 WL 325696Docket: 94-6226

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; May 30, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Willie Whitt, representing himself, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against several state corrections employees, alleging violations of his due process rights and protection against cruel and unusual punishment during his incarceration. The district court dismissed his case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), finding that Whitt failed to present an arguable claim.

Whitt's primary allegations included a false misconduct charge by defendant Hadley and claims of improper prehearing segregation. The court noted that issuing a false misconduct charge does not constitute a violation of substantive due process unless it shocks the conscience or infringes on constitutionally protected rights, which Whitt did not demonstrate. Regarding prehearing segregation, prisoners are entitled to specific procedural protections; however, Whitt's claims were based on alleged violations of institutional procedures rather than federal due process rights, which the court found insufficient.

Whitt also claimed Eighth Amendment violations due to extended confinement in maximum lockdown, but he did not show that this confinement resulted in unnecessary pain. Additionally, he raised issues about being denied the right to call witnesses and inadequate documentation of his disciplinary hearing, but these claims were abandoned on appeal as they were not argued.

The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment and denied Whitt's request for counsel, concluding that the dismissal did not constitute an abuse of discretion.