Benbow v. Weeden
1:13-cv-00334
D.R.I.Jul 10, 2013Background
- Benbow, a prisoner at the Rhode Island ACI, was disciplined for assaulting a correctional officer and received one year of disciplinary segregation and one year loss of good time credits.
- The disciplinary hearing occurred after an infraction report by Officer Grandpre alleging punches, headlock, and spitting blood; Benbow did not attend the hearing.
- The case report and complaint suggest less than 24 hours’ notice, but the record is ambiguous; Benbow is proceeding pro se and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and IFP status.
- Warden Weeden (reviewing officer) affirmed the penalties on appeal; Lieutenant Alves conducted the hearing and allegedly did not conduct an independent investigation or provide detailed findings.
- Benbow also sought expungement of the disciplinary ruling and restoration of good time credits, and wrote to Director Wall seeking investigation; he later pled not guilty but refused to attend the hearing to avoid self-incrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disciplinary segregation implicated a viable liberty interest | Benbow argues segregation was an atypical deprivation | Defendants contend segregation alone lacks a liberty interest | No viable liberty interest stated; dismissal warranted |
| Whether loss of good time credits implicates a liberty interest | Benbow asserts loss of good time is a due process violation | Good time credits under Rhode Island law are discretionary | No liberty interest; claim frivolous and dismissed under Heck principles |
| Whether Benbow waived due process rights by not attending the hearing | Benbow did not attend seeking due process protections | Waiver occurs when inmate voluntarily fails to attend without fault of officials | Waiver applies; due process claims fail as pled |
| Whether Heck bars relief for restoration of good time/expungement | Requests relief implies invalidity of the disciplinary sanction | Relief must be in habeas; §1983 relief for good time is unavailable absent invalidation | Heck foreclosure; only habeas avenue available; certain claims may proceed if not affecting duration of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (disciplinary segregation generally not a liberty interest)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process requires a written statement of the evidence and reasons)
- Hill v. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (some evidence standard for disciplinary decisions)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1997) ( Heck applies to disciplinary hearing challenges seeking damages)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (U.S. 2004) ( Heck not implicated when challenge does not affect duration of sentence)
- DeWitt v. Wall, 121 F. App’x 398 (1st Cir. 2004) (habeas pathway required for sanctions affecting custody)