Summary
finding that due process concerns are not implicated when a prisoner receives as punishment restrictions on visitation
Summary of this case from Hicks v. CaskeyOpinion
No. 10-50202 Summary Calendar.
January 5, 2011.
Diane Michelle Zamora, Gatesville, TX, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 6:09-CV-153.
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Diane Michelle Zamora, Texas prisoner # 814993, appeals the district court's dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Zamora's complaint alleged that, with no disciplinary hearing, prison officials removed her mother from the prison visitation list. She argues that this punishment violated her due process rights and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Punishments such as restrictions on visitation do not implicate due-process concerns. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir. 1975). Nor has Zamora made the requisite showing for an Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment. See Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999).
In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). There is no constitutional basis for Zamora's complaint that her mother was removed from the prison visitation list without a formal hearing. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293; Palmer, 193 F.3d at 352.
AFFIRMED.