1:13-cv-00202
D.N.H.Oct 15, 2013Background
- Carpentino, a pro se prisoner, seeks relief on behalf of himself and his minor son regarding access to the Family Connections Center (FCC) at NHSP.
- FCC is a rehabilitative program offering Skype visits and extra in-person visit days to inmate-parents and their children.
- NH DOC policy categorically bars inmates convicted of sexual offenses against children from FCC participation; other offenses are not categorically excluded.
- Carpentino discovered he has an eleven-year-old son and was denied FCC access based on his sexual-offense conviction.
- Carpentino asserts federal and state constitutional violations, including equal protection, Eighth Amendment, First Amendment familial association, and state rehabilitation rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection viability of exclusion | Carpentino claims exclusion of child sexual offenders from FCC lacks rational basis. | Defendants contend exclusion is rationally related to penological objectives. | Equal protection claim dismissed; rational basis supported. |
| Eighth Amendment and rehabilitation access | Denial of FCC access constitutes cruel and unusual punishment by depriving rehabilitation. | No constitutional right to a specific rehabilitation program exists. | Eighth Amendment claim dismissed. |
| Familial association right | Restriction on FCC access infringes his right to familial association and parent-child relationship. | Prison policy appropriately balances security and family contact with deference to prison administration. | Claim dismissed; no protected right to unrestricted visitation in this context. |
| State-law claims and jurisdiction | State constitutional rights implicated by denial of FCC access. | Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. | State claims dismissed without prejudice; decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard; mass of allegations must show plausible claim)
- Sepúlveda-Villarini v. Dep’t of Educ., 628 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings and plausibility standard applied)
- Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (pleading standards and inferences in plaintiff's favor)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (deference to prison administrators on visitation policies)
- Ky. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (no constitutional right to unfettered visitation)
- Fiallo v. De Batista, 666 F.2d 729 (1st Cir. 1981) (recognizes deference to substantial governmental objectives in confinement contexts)