Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff Tyreen Brown, a former Green Haven inmate, was issued a misbehavior report after a January 21, 2015 shower altercation and was kept in keeplock for 30 days while a disciplinary hearing ran from January 28 to March 13, 2015.
- Brown alleges Hearing Officer Lt. Murphy (1) failed to call a key witness (the reporting officer), (2) did not provide a written disposition of the hearing, and (3) was biased by "inter-departmental loyalty."
- The disciplinary charges were administratively dismissed at the conclusion of the hearing.
- Brown filed a § 1983 claim alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations; the court previously dismissed his amended complaint but granted leave to replead limited to allegations showing atypicality of keeplock.
- The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) did not allege any facts about the conditions of keeplock or other circumstances making the 30‑day confinement an "atypical and significant hardship."
- The court granted Defendant Murphy’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the SAC with prejudice as amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 30 days in keeplock implicated a protected liberty interest | Brown contends 30 days keeplock and attendant procedural defects violated due process | Murphy argues 30‑day keeplock, without atypical conditions, does not create a liberty interest | Court: 30 days alone is not an atypical and significant hardship; no cognizable liberty interest alleged |
| Whether denial of witness violated due process | Brown says Murphy refused to call the reporting officer | Murphy contends witness requests may be waived and Brown did not object during the hearing | Court: Failure to allege timely objection or that request was denied; claim insufficient |
| Whether lack of written disposition prejudiced Brown | Brown alleges he never received a written disposition | Murphy notes the charges were administratively dismissed, so no prejudice | Court: Any error was harmless because no further discipline resulted |
| Whether conclusory bias allegations suffice | Brown alleges bias/inter‑departmental loyalty | Murphy asserts allegations are conclusory and lack supporting facts | Court: Conclusory assertions of bias insufficient to plead due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions must be supported by facts)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest requires atypical and significant hardship)
- Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2004) (prison segregation atypicality standard)
- Proctor v. LeClaire, 846 F.3d 597 (2d Cir.) (procedural due process framework)
- Borcsok v. Early, [citation="299 F. App'x 76"] (limited segregation periods do not typically create liberty interests)
- Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.) (conclusory § 1983 allegations insufficient)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as factual)
- Colon v. Annucci, 344 F. Supp. 3d 612 (S.D.N.Y.) (conclusory bias allegations dismissed)