967 F.3d 113
2d Cir.2020Background
- In 2012 Jarvis Elder, an Attica inmate, was charged with forging inmate account disbursement forms and stealing $630 from another inmate (Reginald Lawrence); after a disciplinary hearing he was sentenced to six months in the SHU.
- Elder was confined on "keep lock" before the hearing and was therefore entitled under DOCCS rules to assistance from a prison officer (Trevor MacIntyre) to investigate and prepare his defense.
- At the hearing Vocational Supervisor Kenneth Kling relied on Sgt. John McCarthy’s report and visual comparison of handwriting on the disputed forms; Kling did not identify or call the officers who countersigned the forms and kept the forms at his side rather than giving Elder copies.
- The New York Appellate Division later annulled the disciplinary finding and expunged the record, citing inadequate efforts to identify/sign witness availability and inadequate assistance. By then Elder had served the SHU term.
- Elder sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process and Eighth Amendment claims; the district court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim and granted summary judgment for defendants on due process grounds.
- On appeal the Second Circuit: affirmed dismissal of the inadequate-notice theory; reversed and ordered summary judgment for Elder on (a) Kling’s failure to produce witnesses and (b) insufficiency of evidence; vacated and remanded the inadequate-assistance claim against MacIntyre for trial; and vacated and remanded the Eighth Amendment dismissal to allow amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to produce requested witnesses at disciplinary hearing | Kling failed to consult readily available staffing logs/logbook to identify and call officers who countersigned the forms | Kling’s limited efforts were sufficient; too many potential signatories and he lacked knowledge of records | Reversed district court; Kling violated due process; summary judgment for Elder on this claim |
| Inadequate assistance by appointed assistant (MacIntyre) | MacIntyre did not obtain the requested documents, interview or locate witnesses (including officers and Lawrence), and did not act as Elder’s surrogate investigator | MacIntyre did enough; inmate himself could not access some records so assistant was not required to obtain them | Vacated district court’s grant; claim remanded for trial to resolve factual disputes about what Elder requested and what MacIntyre did |
| Adequacy of notice in misbehavior report | Elder asserted the report lacked detail (dates/times) and therefore inadequate notice | Defendants argued the report reasonably described the misconduct so notice was sufficient; procedural regulatory deficiencies do not equal federal due process violation | Affirmed district court: notice was constitutionally adequate; inadequate-notice theory dismissed |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting disciplinary conviction ("some reliable evidence") | Evidence rested on visual similarity of handwriting and McCarthy’s inference, with no reliable sample of Lawrence’s signature or proof of unauthorized withdrawals | Defendants argued handwriting comparison and McCarthy’s testimony supplied sufficient evidence | Reversed district court; evidence was not "some reliable evidence" under Sira/Hill; summary judgment for Elder on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (basic due process protections required in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491 (1985) (right to call witnesses is fundamental in disciplinary hearings)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (disciplinary findings must be supported by at least "some evidence")
- Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1991) (prison must use readily available records to identify witnesses when inmate cannot name them)
- Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2004) (notice and "some reliable evidence" standard in prison-discipline due process claims)
- Eng v. Coughlin, 858 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1988) (prison must provide investigatory assistance to confined inmates)
- Silva v. Casey, 992 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1993) (assistant acts as inmate's surrogate to perform tasks inmate could do if not confined)
- Ayers v. Ryan, 152 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1998) (assistant's failure to interview facility witnesses can violate due process)
- Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2004) ("some evidence" interpreted to require reliable evidence, not just any evidence)
- Smith v. Fischer, 803 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2015) (SHU confinement implicates substantial liberty interests and triggering due process protections)