344 F. Supp. 3d 612
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Pro se plaintiff Armando Colon, formerly incarcerated at Sullivan CF, sued DOCCS officials under § 1983 alleging due process violations in Tier II/Tier III/administrative-segregation (Ad Seg) proceedings, retaliation via false misbehavior reports, and sexual assault during a pat-frisk by C.O. Kurtis Holzapfel.
- April–May 2015: Tier II hearing (Jordan) resulted in 30 days keeplock; plaintiff sought review and the disposition was administratively reversed/expunged. May 2015 Tier III hearing (Moore) led to a guilty finding for weapon possession and a SHU sentence later reduced on appeal by Venettozzi.
- May–June 2016: Holzapfel authored a misbehavior report alleging threats; DOCCS issued an Ad Seg recommendation; Burnett presided over Ad Seg hearing and ordered confinement. Plaintiff alleges biased burden-shifting and deficient periodic Ad Seg reviews.
- Plaintiff alleges Holzapfel sexually fondled him during a March 1, 2016 pat-frisk; plaintiff filed an IGP grievance that was logged but closed as being investigated by OSI; plaintiff claims lack of investigation and witness loss.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead personal involvement, failure to state claims, qualified immunity, and PLRA exhaustion failures. Court grants in part and denies in part: dismisses most claims but allows a due process claim tied to the Ad Seg periodic-review process to proceed; dismissals are without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal involvement of high-level officials (Annucci, Bellnier, Keyser, Polizzi) | These officials are responsible for or aware of constitutional deprivations and failed to act. | Complaint names them in caption only; no facts showing personal involvement. | Dismissed for lack of plausible allegations of personal involvement. |
| Liability of appeal officer Venettozzi for affirming Tier III disposition | Venettozzi should be liable for failing to correct procedural errors on appeal. | Courts are split; qualified immunity protects him because law is unsettled. | Dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. |
| Due process — Tier II (Jordan) keeplock 30 days | Jordan denied requested witnesses and failed to give reasons; process violated. | 30-day keeplock is not an atypical, significant hardship; no protected liberty interest. | Dismissed for failure to allege a liberty interest. |
| Due process — Tier III (Moore) denial of witnesses | Moore denied several witnesses (some interviewed) impairing defense. | Moore reasonably excluded witnesses as redundant or futile; "some evidence" supported the finding. | Dismissed: exclusion for redundancy was permissible and disposition had "some evidence." |
| Due process — Administrative Segregation (Burnett) initial hearing & periodic review | Burnett biased; applied wrong burden; periodic sixty-day reviews were perfunctory/sham. | Initial Ad Seg procedures satisfied Hewitt; evidence supported confinement; no required burden beyond Hewitt. | Initial Ad Seg decision dismissed; claim relating to periodic sixty-day review survives (plausible frozen/insufficient review). |
| PLRA exhaustion re: false misbehavior reports (Holzapfel) | Plaintiff filed grievance; retaliation claim should proceed. | CORC closed grievance as untimely; failure to properly exhaust bars suit. | Dismissed for failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies. |
| Eighth Amendment — sexual assault during pat-frisk (Holzapfel) | Alleged groping/fondling during search amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. | Allegations do not plausibly show intent to gratify or humiliate; conduct alleged as pretextual security frisk. | Dismissed for failure to plausibly allege the requisite subjective intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requirement that complaint plead factual plausibility)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis for prison discipline)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (procedural protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 ("some evidence" standard for disciplinary findings)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (procedures for administrative segregation and periodic review)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment standards for excessive force/sexual abuse)
- Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649 (Second Circuit application of Sandin and due process in prison discipline)
- Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57 ("some evidence" review and scope of judicial inquiry)