JACOB HAGOPIAN, United States Magistrate Judge
Confined at the Adult Correctional Institution, Cranston, Rhode Island, pro se plaintiff Clarence E. Spivey has filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has brought this action alleging a violation of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and names as a defendant Ashbel T. Wall, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections ("DOC").
The factual basis for his complaint is as follows: Plaintiff claims that the Rhode Island Department of Corrections implemented a policy whereby his good-time credits are not calculated in a manner consistent with due process. He asserts that the DOC has unlawfully deducted 5,500 days of good time credit that he had accrued. Plaintiff also complains that the DOC has implemented a "Code of Discipline" policy which is incompatible with the so called Morris Rules. Plaintiff contends that the DOC failed to petition this court prior to creating the policy, in violation of the Morris Rules. Spivey also complains that this "Code of Discipline" policy has resulted in a loss of 140 days of good time credit that he should have accumulated, but for the implementation of this policy.
Section 1915A of Title 28 of the United States Code directs the Court to review prisoner complaints before docketing or soon thereafter to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to this directive, this Court finds that the instant complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the following reasons:
(1) To the extent that the plaintiff seeks a restoration of his good time credit, a state prisoner has no cause of action under § 1983 to challenge the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment.
Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). His sole federal remedy lies in a writ of habeas corpus.
Id.
(2) To the extent that plaintiff seeks to recover damages for alleged constitutional violations done during disciplinary hearings where the plaintiff was deprived of good time credit, such an action is not cognizable under § 1983.
Edwards v. Balisok,
520 U.S. 641 (1997).
(3) To the extent that plaintiff seeks to recover damages for violations of the so called
Morris Rules, this Court does not entertain such actions.
Doctor v. Wall,
143 F. Supp.2d 203 (D.R.I. 2001).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I recommend that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and his complaint be dismissed. Any objection to this report and recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten days of its receipt. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b). Failure to file timely, specific objection to this report constitutes waiver of both the right to review by the district court and the right to appeal the district court's decision. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980).