P. Horan v. C. Newingham
2622 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Patrick Horan, a state inmate, sued several Department of Corrections employees alleging false/retaliatory misconducts, failure to protect from threats, denial of library access, and denial of opportunity to present evidence at misconduct hearings.
- Two key misconducts: (1) Newingham issued a misconduct alleging Horan threatened inmate Quinones (Horan had filed grievances about threats); hearing examiner Mackey found Horan guilty and imposed RHU and other sanctions. (2) Wyandt (law librarian) issued a misconduct for abusive language after Horan said he would sue for more library access; hearing examiner Canino found him guilty and imposed 30 days cell restriction.
- Horan alleged First Amendment retaliation, due process violations (including violation of 37 Pa. Code §93.10(b)(3) that prisoners may present evidence), denial of access to courts, and Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect.
- Trial court sustained preliminary objections (demurrer), dismissed all claims but gave Horan 30 days to amend; Horan appealed and the Commonwealth Court treated the appeal as from a final order for judicial economy.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed dismissal of retaliation, constitutional due process, access-to-courts, and failure-to-protect claims, but reversed and remanded only Horan’s claim under 37 Pa. Code §93.10(b)(3) (denial of opportunity to present relevant evidence), finding his allegations and attached witness statements were sufficient at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (misconducts) | Horan: misconducts were fabricated and issued in retaliation for grievances/library threats | Defs: misconducts were supported by reports and advanced penological goals; plaintiff must plead facts negating legitimate penological purpose | Dismissed — misconduct reports provided "some evidence" supporting violations, negating retaliation claim |
| Procedural due process (constitutional) | Horan: hearing examiners denied opportunity to present witnesses/evidence and process was inadequate | Defs: sanctions (30 days cell restriction/RHU) did not create atypical, significant hardship triggering liberty interest | Dismissed — 30 days not atypical under Sandin; no constitutional due process right triggered |
| State regulation 37 Pa. Code §93.10(b)(3) (opportunity to present evidence) | Horan: hearing examiner prevented retrieval/consideration of exculpatory witness statements | Defs: hearing examiner has discretion; no abuse shown | Reversed and remanded — accepts pleading and attached witness statements as sufficient to state a §93.10 claim at pleading stage |
| Eighth Amendment failure to protect | Horan: defendants knew of repeated threats by Quinones and failed to protect him | Defs: allegations are vague, no substantial risk alleged, investigations showed no evidence of threats | Dismissed — allegations were conclusory and insufficient to show substantial risk or deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Yount v. Department of Corrections, 966 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (elements and burdens for prison retaliation claims)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest triggered only by atypical and significant hardship)
- Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (application of Sandin to prison segregation)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for failure-to-protect claims)
- Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim)
- Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2008) ("some evidence" in officer's report can defeat retaliation claim)
- Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (prisoner must plead facts negating legitimate penological justification)
- Hackett v. Horn, 751 A.2d 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (actual injury required for denial-of-access-to-courts claim)