Proctor v. LeClaire, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1201

Patrick Proctor, a New York state prisoner serving 32½ years to life, has spent ~22 years in the SHU: 9 years in Disciplinary Segregation and 13+ years in Administrative Segregation (Ad Seg).
DOCCS conducts Ad Seg reviews under 7 NYCRR §301.4(d): Facility Committee -> Central Office Committee -> Deputy Commissioner decision; reviews are nominally every 60 days.
Proctor alleges §1983 claims: (1) procedural due process—DOCCS’s periodic §301.4(d) reviews are hollow/sham and therefore insufficient; (2) substantive due process—indefinite SHU confinement has caused significant harm.
Depositions and review paperwork show repetitive/boilerplate reports, reviewers treating past escape history as dispositive, and some reviewers testifying they rarely or never recommend release from Ad Seg.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on procedural due process and sua sponte granted summary judgment on substantive due process without Rule 56(f) notice. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Proctor’s §301.4(d) periodic Ad Seg reviews satisfied due process	Proctor: reviews were perfunctory/sham — preordained outcomes, boilerplate reports, and reviewers ignored changed behavior, so process was meaningless	DOCCS: regular §301.4(d) reviews were conducted and complied with Hewitt; decisions are discretionary and entitled to deference	Triable issues exist. Reviews must be "meaningful": actually evaluate current/future risk, consider new evidence, and not be a pretext for punishment or indefinite confinement; summary judgment for defendants on this claim reversed.
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte on substantive due process	Proctor: substantive claim should be adjudicated with proper notice and opportunity to respond	DOCCS: did not move for summary judgment on substantive due process	Court: sua sponte grant violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) because no notice or time to respond; vacated and remanded for further proceedings on substantive claim.

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1983) (Ad Seg requires some notice, opportunity to present views, and periodic review to ensure continued necessity)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interest analysis for prison disciplinary confinement)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (procedural protections in prison disciplinary contexts)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for what process is due)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (deference to prison administration for security measures)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) ("some evidence" standard in prison disciplinary decisions)
Mims v. Shapp, 744 F.2d 946 (3d Cir. 1984) (extended/indefinite Ad Seg gives rise to significant liberty interest; periodic review must not be sham)
Kelly v. Brewer, 525 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1975) (Ad Seg must be reviewed to ensure justifications continue to subsist)
Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. 2012) (periodic Ad Seg reviews must be meaningful and not pretextual)
Selby v. Caruso, 734 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2013) (periodic Ad Seg decisions must be supported by some evidence)