Gonzalez v. Hasty
269 F. Supp. 3d 45
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- Gonzalez, a federal prisoner convicted of firearms and assault offenses, was held in administrative detention in SHUs at MCC and MDC from Feb 1999 through April 2002 (with transfers to USP-Lewisburg), based on assault history and security concerns.
- MDC officials held weekly SHU review meetings and documented repeated weekly/30-day reviews (by lieutenants, Captain LoPresti as SRO, and psychologists), which consistently found him a “high security” inmate and continued SHU placement.
- Gonzalez alleges he was denied meaningful 7- and 30-day due-process reviews under 28 C.F.R. § 541.22 and challenges the adequacy of psychological evaluations; he also asserts Eighth Amendment claims about SHU conditions (limited recreation, inadequate cleaning supplies, used razors/clothing, dental care and shoe-related medical harms).
- He filed BOP administrative grievances (BP-8/BP-9) in Feb 2002, exhausted administrative appeals, and pursued prior litigation that reached the Second Circuit on timeliness; the district court then considered defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
- The court reviewed the availability of an implied Bivens damages remedy in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi and declined to create a new Bivens cause of action for Gonzalez’s Fifth Amendment due-process challenge; it also dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims as either non-serious or lacking deliberate indifference and therefore no Bivens remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens damages remedy exists for alleged denial of meaningful SHU procedural reviews (Fifth Amendment) | Gonzalez: SHU reviews were not meaningful or compliant with § 541.22; he had no adequate remedy except damages | Defendants: administrative remedies and habeas were available; Ziglar bars extension of Bivens here; special factors counsel hesitation | Court: New context under Ziglar; alternative remedies and special factors preclude Bivens; Fifth Amendment claim dismissed |
| Whether SHU review documentation/meetings were constitutionally deficient | Gonzalez: reviews were hollow, sometimes delegated, and documentation may be unreliable | Defendants: contemporaneous records and repeated reviews (weekly + 30-day) demonstrate compliance | Court: Documentary record shows repeated reviews; plaintiff’s perception insufficient to create a Bivens right |
| Whether Eighth Amendment supports Bivens damages for non-medical SHU conditions (recreation, cleaning supplies, used razors/clothing) | Gonzalez: conditions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment | Defendants: conditions were not objectively serious; administrative remedies available; Ziglar limits Bivens extension | Court: Non-medical deprivations not sufficiently serious; new context and special factors weigh against Bivens; claim dismissed |
| Whether Eighth Amendment medical claims (dental care, shoe-related injury) support Bivens | Gonzalez: lack of dental supplies and inadequate shoes caused later medical harm | Defendants: no contemporaneous complaints/medical evidence; alternative remedies exist; causation weak | Court: Medical allegations are conclusory, not objectively serious or showing deliberate indifference; Bivens remedy inappropriate; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy under the Fourth Amendment)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (courts must treat extensions of Bivens as a disfavored, context-specific inquiry and consider special factors)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (recognition of a Bivens-like remedy under the Fifth Amendment in a distinct context)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (recognition of an Eighth Amendment Bivens remedy for failure to provide medical care in a specific factual setting)
- McGowan v. United States, 825 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussion of Bivens framework)
- Gonzalez v. Hasty, 802 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2015) (Second Circuit addressed timeliness and assumed arguendo a Bivens claim existed)
- Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629 (2d Cir. 2001) (availability of § 2241 habeas to challenge execution of sentence)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (special-factors/skepticism about judicial creation of new implied remedies)
- Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (Bivens disfavored where alternative remedial schemes exist)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical need)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies broadly to prisoner suits)