Hadwin v. Stalder, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30842
Conference Calendar
JOSEPH W. HADWIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD STALDER; LINDA RAMSAY; VENETIA MICHAEL;
BECKY MOSS; RAY HANSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:03-CV-1735
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph W. Hadwin, former Louisiana prisoner # 126755,
appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint with prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Hadwin challenged David Wade Correctional
Center’s (DWCC’s) Posted Policy # 43, which requires an inmate
who is sentenced to isolation to relinquish his mattress and
bedding from 5:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Hadwin alleged that this

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-30842
-2-
policy violated his due process rights and his Eighth Amendment
rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Policy # 43 did not impose an objectively sufficient
deprivation or the “denial of the minimal civilized measures of
life’s necessities.” Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th
Cir. 1999)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus,
the prison’s implementation of Policy # 43 did not constitute
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See
Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, 665-66 (5th Cir. 1971). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief on
Hadwin’s Eighth Amendment claim. See Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d
211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998). As Policy # 43 does not clearly
impinge on the duration of Hadwin’s confinement or constitute
atypical punishment, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the due process claim as frivolous. See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Orellana v. Kyle,
65 F.3d 29, 31-32 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --