Mallard v. State of New York
9:21-cv-01080
N.D.N.Y.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Larry Mallard, a pro se plaintiff, sued Defendants Barbosa and Martin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights during prison disciplinary hearings.
- The claims concern two disciplinary hearings overseen by Barbosa and Martin, and focus on whether Mallard was denied procedural due process.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no triable issues of material fact on Mallard’s due process claims.
- A Magistrate Judge recommended summary judgment for Defendants, finding no viable due process violation.
- Mallard objected primarily on the grounds that discovery was prematurely closed before these issues were resolved.
- The District Judge reviewed the objections, found no grounds to reopen discovery, and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, dismissing the claims against Barbosa and Martin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process violation in disciplinary hearings | Mallard did not receive a fair process, including denial of witnesses and evidence | Barbosa and Martin followed proper procedures; any witness/evidence denial was justified | No due process violation; no triable fact issues found |
| SHU (Special Housing Unit) confinement as liberty issue | SHU time created a protected liberty interest | SHU time was properly credited and did not violate liberty interests | No genuine issue of fact; process meets Fourteenth Amendment |
| Denial of witnesses/documents at rehearing | Key witnesses and evidence were unfairly excluded | Witness testimony was duplicative/irrelevant; no prejudice by denying documents | Plaintiff had opportunity to call/question witnesses, no prejudice |
| Preclusion of further discovery | Discovery should be reopened before dismissal | Discovery is closed; deadlines extended multiple times | No basis to reopen discovery; objection denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2004) (sets the standard for due process violations in the context of prison disciplinary hearings)
- A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (standard for district court review of magistrate judge recommendations)
- DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (procedures for objections and clear error review in R&R context)