Petaway v. Osden
3:17-cv-00004
| D. Conn. | Apr 26, 2019Background
- Petaway was sentenced in Connecticut in 2005 to 150 months; he was later transferred to Rhode Island under the Interstate Corrections Compact and released in July 2016 after receiving sentence-reducing credits.
- While housed in Rhode Island, Petaway received several disciplinary reports (“bookings”); Rhode Island allegedly did not provide him with written copies or evidence, and transmitted the reports to Connecticut.
- Connecticut officials rescinded portions of Petaway’s earned risk reduction credits and prevented accrual of credits for certain months based on those Rhode Island reports, which Petaway says delayed his release from May to July 2016.
- Petaway sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of due process and wrongful continued confinement based on the loss of those credits.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting disciplinary records, affidavits, and DOC policy documents; at hearing Petaway conceded the claim involved only risk reduction credits.
- The court found the disputed credits were risk reduction credits (not good-conduct “good time”), which Connecticut law treats as discretionary and therefore not protected by a constitutional liberty interest; court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deprivation of the credits created a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest | Petaway: Connecticut rescinded earned credits based on procedurally deficient Rhode Island findings, so he had a protected liberty interest in those earned credits | Defendants: Credits were risk reduction credits under a discretionary statute; no constitutionally protected liberty interest | Court: No liberty interest in risk reduction credits under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98e; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether procedural due process (Wolff) was violated by relying on Rhode Island reports | Petaway: Rhode Island hearings lacked required procedures and documentary notice, so Connecticut’s reliance violated due process | Defendants: Connecticut reasonably relied on Rhode Island reports; Petaway failed to grieve Rhode Island tickets and produced no administrative record | Court: No violation because the underlying right is not protected; alternatively, officials would be entitled to qualified immunity for relying on reports |
| Whether injunction ordering destruction/erasure of Rhode Island records is available | Petaway: Requests injunction to erase Rhode Island bookings/records | Defendants: Court lacks authority; records are not court records | Court: Denied—no authority to order destruction of non‑court records; claim moot given release |
| Mootness / subject-matter jurisdiction after release | Petaway: Seeks damages and injunctive relief despite release | Defendants: Petaway’s release moots equitable relief claims; no continuing stake | Court: Many equitable claims moot after release; case resolved on merits for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (recognizes that state-created good-time credits can create a protected liberty interest under certain statutory schemes)
- Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357 (Conn. 2017) (explains discretion in Connecticut’s risk reduction scheme and that statute does not create an expectation of automatic retention or application of credits)
- Green v. Commissioner of Correction, 184 Conn. App. 76 (Conn. App. 2018) (concludes no constitutionally protected liberty interest in discretionary risk reduction credits)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (qualified immunity standard: protects officials unless clearly established law is violated)
- DiStiso v. Cook, 691 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses qualified immunity and reasonable reliance on available information)
- Abed v. Armstrong, 209 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2000) (addresses liberty-interest analysis for credits under a discretionary statutory scheme)