Cressionnie v. Blount, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 10, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60627
Summary Calendar
CLINTON L. CRESSIONNIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
REBECCA BLOUNT, In her individual and official capacity as
Lieutenant and Unit 29D Administrator; HAZEL ROBINSON, In her
individual and official capacity as Correctional Officer IV of
Unit 29D; EDDIE CATES, In his individual and official capacity as
Disciplinary Investigating Officer; PATTY LEGG, In her individual
and official capacity as Disciplinary Hearing Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(4:03-CV-291PA)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Clinton L. Cressionnie, Mississippi prisoner #22155, appeals,
pro se, the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure
to state a claim. Cressionnie contends that the district court
erred by dismissing this action without allowing him to amend his

-- 1 of 3 --

2
complaint or elaborate on his claims at a hearing pursuant to
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985), overruled
on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
Dismissal of a prisoner’s action after allowing him only one
opportunity to state his case is ordinarily unjustified. Schultea
v. Wood, 27 F.3d 1112, 1118 (5th Cir. 1994); Jacquez v. Procunier,
801 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1986). Such a dismissal is appropriate
only when the plaintiff has pleaded his best case, such that
allowing him to amend his complaint or elaborate on his claims
would still not produce a viable § 1983 claim. Id.
Review of the record reveals Cressionnie has not raised any
(1) viable due process claims and allowing him to elaborate on
these claims would be futile, see Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193
(5th Cir. 1995); Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir.
1988); see also Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir.
1999); or (2) a viable retaliation claim against any of the
defendants other than Lieutenant Rebecca Blount, and that allowing
him to elaborate on these claims would be futile, see Hart v.
Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Jones v.
Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the
district court properly dismissed Cressionnie’s due process claims
against all defendants and his retaliation claims against all
defendants except Lieutenant Blount.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Review of the record shows that Cressionnie should be allowed
to elaborate on his retaliation claim against Lieutenant Blount.
Cressionnie alleged that he wrote a grievance letter complaining
about Lieutenant Blount’s actions and that she confiscated the
letter. While these allegations were not clear, Cressionnie also
appears to have alleged that Lieutenant Blount played some role in
the initiation of allegedly false disciplinary charges against him
shortly after confiscating the letter. Cressionnie further alleged
that he was found guilty of the false disciplinary charges and was
held in segregated confinement as a result. Such allegations, if
developed, could state a valid civil rights claim. See Hart, 343
F.3d at 764. Restated, the dismissal of Cressionnie’s retaliation
claim against Lieutenant Blount without any opportunity to
elaborate on that claim was erroneous. See Eason v. Thaler, 14
F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1994).
We therefore AFFIRM the judgment except as to the dismissal of
Cressionnie’s retaliation claim against Lieutenant Blount; that
part of the judgment is VACATED; and this matter is REMANDED to the
district court for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART;
and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

-- 3 of 3 --