JAMES JEFFRIES v. CHRIS TRIPP BRAD HOENIG BRAD PETERSON ARIANA DEN HARTOG (2023)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

Plaintiff James J. Jeffries brings this pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Jefferies also asks to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), ECF No. 4, despite already paying the filing fee on August 18, 2023.

I. INITIAL REVIEW STANDARDS

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to review all prisoner complaints filed against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). On review, the Court must identify the cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, that it determines (a) is frivolous or malicious, (b) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (c) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b).

A claim is “frivolous” if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “The plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that success on the merits is more than a ‘sheer possibility.’ ” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

A pro se complaint “must be held to ‘less stringent standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers.’ ” Rinehart v. Weitzell, 964 F.3d 684, 687 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)). The Court must weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (determining what is “clearly baseless” is left to discretion of court ruling on in forma pauperis petition). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice ․ Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ․ a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 678–79 (citations omitted).

“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted). A complaint states a plausible claim for relief when its “factual content ․ allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

Jefferies is currently incarcerated at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) in Fort Madison, Iowa. ECF 1 at 3. Jefferies argues that ISP and its employees, see ECF No. 1 at 3-4, violated his right to due process through the use of the Iowa Department of Corrections' (IDOC) “generic note” policy. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. “Generic notes” are records made by prison staff documenting interactions with inmates. Shelton v. Richardson, 2012 WL 12862338, at *2 (S.D. Iowa Dec. 12, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 12091124 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 30, 2013), aff'd, 564 F. App'x 277 (8th Cir. 2014). These notes “are to be objective and based on professional judgment. Information is to be marked as ‘alleged’ if not verified.” Bonilla v. Iowa Bd. of Parole, 930 N.W.2d 751, 784 (Iowa 2019) (citing Iowa Dep't of Corr., Policy and Procedures, No. AD-IS-05, ICON Generic Notes at 2 (effective May 2016), https://doc.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/ad-is-05_icon_generic_notes.pdf).

Jeffries maintains that multiple generic notes have been written in his prison records. ECF No. 1 at 6. Jeffries complains that he receives no due process when such notes are written in his records; that these notes are considered by the Iowa Board of Parole and Governor's Office when considering an inmate's freedom; and that they are considered by the IDOC at classification hearings, annual reviews, and administrative segregation reviews. Id. Jeffries alleges that he receives these notes with “no Written Notice, no investigation, no witnesses, no hearing, no rebuttal, no appeal, no grievance, no notice of new evidence and no recourse.” Id. Jeffries has requested that ISP and the IDOC cease using such notes and expunge them from his record. Id. at 7. IDOC has refused to comply with his request. Id. at 7. Jeffries requests injunctive relief here, asking this court to find that the prison's use of generic notes violates his right to due process and to order IDOC to expunge such notes from his records. ECF No. 1 at 7.

Jefferies's claim is without merit for several reasons. First, while Jeffries alleges that generic notes are used by the Iowa Board of Parole and Governor's Office when considering an inmate's freedom and are considered by the IDOC at classification hearings, annual reviews, and administrative segregation reviews, ECF No. 1, at 6, he does not allege that this use of the notes has affected him negatively in any way. Jeffries has failed to show that he suffered “actual harm” by a governmental agencies' consideration of generic notes. See Brooks v. Terry, 208 F.3d 217 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (inmate cannot establish actual injury merely by showing prison's law library or legal-assistance program is theoretically subpar; inmate must demonstrate alleged shortcomings hindered his efforts to pursue legal claim); Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 107 F.3d 609, 617 (8th Cir. 1997) (even though plaintiffs showed complete and systematic denial of access to law library and legal assistance, claim failed as matter of law because none suffered actual injury or prejudice)). Jeffries is likely concerned that generic notes will harm him in the future when he comes before the Iowa Board of Parole, but potential future harm is not a ground for a claim under § 1983. See Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff's prison retaliation claim was properly dismissed because it was “speculative and conclusory”).

Secondly, even if Jefferies was able to show that a government agency relied on these generic notes in an official governmental proceeding involving him, this does not violate his right to due process. The Iowa Supreme Court previously determined that an inmate's due process rights were not violated when the Iowa Parole Board considered generic notes in making a parole determination. See Bonilla, 930 N.W.2d at 784. This is because parole boards are permitted to consider reliable hearsay evidence, and inmates have access to their file, an opportunity to respond, and the right to an administrative appeal from an adverse decision. Id. This court agrees with the Bonilla court.

Parole boards are not only permitted to consider reliable hearsay evidence—they must under Iowa law. A parole board could not make a parole determination without considering an inmate's behavior while in prison, see Iowa Code Ann. § 906.5(3) (West 2023) (“At the time of a review conducted under this section, the board shall consider all pertinent information regarding the person, including the circumstances of the person's offense, any presentence report which is available, the previous social history and criminal record of the person, the person's conduct, work, and attitude in prison, and the reports of physical and mental examinations that have been made.”) (emphasis added), which necessarily requires reviewing an inmate's prison records. Therefore, IDOC's use of generic notes cannot rise to a due process violation that can be brought under § 1983.

Lastly, “[P]rison officials ordinarily must have wide latitude within which to make appropriate limitations to maintain institutional security.” Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1554 (8th Cir. 1996). This is because “central to all other corrections goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves.” Id. (citing Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 823 (1974). A prison cannot maintain internal security within its facilities if it cannot keep records on its inmates. Inmates may remain in prison for years, but staff come and go—either from shift-to-shift or year-to-year. Maintaining permanent records on inmates is central to a prison's ability to maintain security when its workforce is constantly revolving.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff James Jeffries's claim “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, and is DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (court shall dismiss complaint on initial review if complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim or seeks monetary relief from defendant who is immune).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffries's request for permission to proceed without prepayment of fees, ECF No. 4, is DENIED as moot because he has already paid the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2023.

STEPHANIE M. ROSE, Chief Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA