Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Tyreen Brown, a former Green Haven inmate, was placed in 30 days of keeplock after a January 21, 2015 misbehavior report alleging a fight and refusal to follow orders following a shower incident.
- Misbehavior report prepared by Sgt. Markham alleged C.O. Miller witnessed another inmate push Brown; Brown disputes the allegations.
- Disciplinary hearing began January 28, 2015 before Lt. Murphy; hearing was adjourned multiple times for witness availability; Markham did not testify though Brown attempted to call him; three other staff testified.
- Charges were administratively dismissed at the hearing and Brown received no further discipline.
- Brown filed grievances; I.G.P. Supervisor Laura Stanaway returned one grievance as not grievable. Brown sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourteenth Amendment due process violations and sought damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal: due process claims dismissed without prejudice; official-capacity monetary claims dismissed with prejudice; leave to amend granted limitedly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 30 days of keeplock implicated a protected liberty interest | Brown: 30-day keeplock (and procedural defects) deprived him of liberty without due process | Defendants: 30 days of keeplock, without allegations of unusually harsh conditions, is not an "atypical and significant hardship" | Court: Dismissed — 30 days alone, with no specific atypical conditions alleged, does not state a protected liberty interest |
| Whether false report or allegedly uncredible witness testimony (C.O. Miller) denied due process | Brown: Miller wrote a false report and gave unreliable testimony at hearing | Defendants: Even accepting allegations, without a protected liberty interest, no due process violation | Court: Dismissed — merits of testimony irrelevant absent protected liberty interest |
| Whether hearing officer (Murphy) violated due process by not compelling Markham to testify or failing to provide a written disposition | Brown: Murphy should have compelled Markham and supplied a written statement of reasons/evidence | Defendants: Procedural claims insufficient without a cognizable liberty interest | Court: Dismissed — procedural shortcomings do not create a due process violation where no liberty interest shown |
| Whether Stanaway’s denial of grievances violated due process | Brown: Denial of grievances denied meaningful relief and due process | Defendants: Grievance denial is not an independent constitutional violation and does not create jurisdiction | Court: Dismissed — grievance denial cannot independently establish a due process violation absent underlying protected interest |
| Whether monetary damages against defendants in official capacity are barred | Brown: sought damages from officials in official capacities | Defendants: Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages | Court: Dismissed with prejudice — official-capacity monetary claims barred by Eleventh Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (procedural standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions vs. factual allegations)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest requires atypical and significant hardship)
- Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649 (2d Cir.) (application of Sandin in prison-discipline context)
- Palmer v. Richards, 364 F.3d 60 (2d Cir.) (shorter segregations may implicate liberty interest only if conditions are more severe)
- Sealey v. Giltner, 197 F.3d 578 (2d Cir.) (conditions-only-incrementally-more-severe may not meet atypicality)
- Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (2d Cir.) (factors for atypical and significant hardship)
- Proctor v. LeClaire, 846 F.3d 597 (2d Cir.) (elements of procedural due process claim)