Phillip Fantone v. Fred Latini
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2470
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Phillip Fantone, incarcerated in Pennsylvania, was granted parole by the Parole Board in April 2012 but the Board rescinded the parole before it was executed after prison misconduct charges arose.
- Prison officers charged Fantone with "cupping" methadone; he was placed in the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) and received disciplinary sanctions (35 days, later 90 days).
- Fantone alleges Officer Joe Burger threatened to keep him in RHU and have him moved away if he did not confess; Fantone filed a grievance against Burger complaining of the threats.
- Fantone alleges Burger listened to the disciplinary hearing, communicated with Lt. Latini, and influenced Fantone’s continued administrative custody in the RHU after disciplinary time-served, which contributed to the Parole Board’s rescission.
- Administrative appeals later reversed the misconduct findings for lack of reliable evidence, but the Parole Board did not reinstate parole; Fantone sued under § 1983 for due process violations, conspiracy, and retaliation.
- District Court dismissed all claims; the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process and conspiracy claims but reversed and remanded as to the retaliation claim against Burger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether combination of RHU placement and rescission of pre-execution parole created a state-created liberty interest triggering due process | Fantone: being moved from imminent parole to RHU confinement plus rescission effectively lengthened his sentence and created an atypical and significant hardship | Defendants: Pennsylvania law gives Parole Board unfettered discretion to rescind parole before execution; RHU conditions and confinement were not comparable to Supermax-level atypicality | Court: No protected liberty interest; affirm dismissal of due process claim |
| Whether Fantone plausibly pleaded conspiracy to deprive due process rights | Fantone: defendants conspired to deprive him of parole and liberty via misconduct charges and RHU placement | Defendants: no underlying due process violation, so no actionable conspiracy | Court: Conspiracy claim fails because no viable underlying due process violation; claim dismissed |
| Whether Burger retaliated against Fantone for (a) refusing to write a confession and (b) filing a grievance | Fantone: Burger threatened retaliation for refusal to confess and then caused/participated in administrative RHU placement after the grievance, deterring exercise of rights | Burger: alleged chronology/movements don’t show Burger caused RHU placement and some threats predated the grievance | Court: Plaintiff’s pro se allegations (threat, refusal to confess, grievance, Burger’s involvement in communications and conduct) state a plausible retaliation claim; dismissal reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (state parole grant not a protected liberty interest when parole may be rescinded at the Board's discretion)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest exists only where confinement imposes atypical and significant hardship)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (extreme Supermax conditions, indeterminate confinement, and parole disqualification can create a protectable liberty interest)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (liberty interests may arise from state law or the Due Process Clause)
- Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (elements of a prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)