Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claim for wrongful imprisonment despite evidence that the conduct violation was later dismissed and expunged, creating a liberty interest under Sandin v. Conner and Hays v. Faulkner

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : I was arrested and put in the jail (hole) on Oct. 25, 2016, for an altered ink pen . with the APPERANCE OF DRUG RESIDUE, that was found on the top bunk, I sleep on the : bottom bunk. The residue was not drug residue, per. the mo. d.o.c. centeral office’, I was held without probable cause being established for eighty-three (83) days for investigation. Respondants have a N.A.R.C. I test on site that can determine if | ~ ; ithe residue was drugs or not, with the results within forty (40) min. The respondents chose not to use this determination to show there was no druds present in © the pen. The respondants chose not to use the stress test (lie detector) test Y ,which is on site, and in accordance with Mo. D.O.C. policy D1-8.3 to establish the ‘truth » with the results in fifteen (15) minutes. I was kept in jail (hole) eighty -three days without the benefit of the aformentioned investigative tools at there disposal to establish probable cause. After thirty (30) days my confinement was continued on Nov. 23, 2016, per. Lori Bowen, Function Unit Manager (F.U.M.), it was was prdered.that my confinement be continued on, Dec. 23, 2016, per. Kaley , stone, case manager Ii. MISSOURI STATUE 217. 380, clearly states that no one is to be confined on proof of guilt for more than thirty (30) days for a major violation, and no more than ten (10) days for a minor violation which is what RULE 11.3 is. I filed a grievance on 5/18/17, the grievance response clearly states "I find that there is sufficent evidence to warrant a dismissal of the violation’! "Therefore, I shall direct that the aforementioned violation (tracking # 16-06726) be dismissed and expunged from your file’! Which shows that a mistake has been made. Which shows that a mistake has been made, for which i am seeking, seventy-five (75) dollars a day for eighty-three (83) days, a totle of $6,225.00, for wrongful imprisionment, in actual damages, and fifty-thousand ($50,000.00) ™ . dollars in punitive damages. ; QUESTION: how can the district court use SANDINE, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), "When it clearly states} "if you.donot break the rules, you willnot be punished, % and the EIGIH CIRCUIT OF APPEALS HAS RULED IN:,HAYS V. FALKNER 388 F. 3d, 669 : (2004), Which awarded a fifty-thousand ($50 ,000.:00) award for wrongful imprision=-...i. : : ment. When the petitioner has shown that the conduct violation was later dismissed . expunged, to create a liberty interest, and the imprisionment (hole) was a wis’. mistake. ; | (ii)