Shabazz v. Bezio
9:10-cv-01212
N.D.N.Y.Dec 2, 2011Background
- Shabazz, an inmate at Clinton Annex, alleged his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by DOCCS discipline procedures related to hair and headwear policies.
- Bezio conducted the initial interview and the Tier II disciplinary hearing that led to keeplock for Shabazz’s hair and headpiece violations.
- Shabazz was not a Rastafarian but belonged to the Moorish Science Temple; DOCCS rules required Rastafarian registration to wear dreadlocks or Rastafarian headpieces.
- A second Tier II hearing occurred regarding a headpiece; Chase presided and another 30-day keeplock was imposed; Shabazz appealed.
- Administrative reversal on March 16, 2009 expunged the disciplinary records; Shabazz then pursued state court remedies and this federal action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 followed.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss all claims for lack of actionable due process violations and qualified immunity defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process claim based on DOCS procedures | Shabazz claims Bezio’s handling violated DOCCS guidelines | Regulatory noncompliance does not by itself create a due process entitlement | Claim dismissed on this ground |
| Existence of a protected liberty interest under Sandin | Segregation exceeded permissible limits, creating a liberty interest | No clear threshold deprivation established; facts unresolved | Questions of fact preclude dismissal at this stage |
| Fair and impartial hearing by the officer | Borio’s role as investigator/hearing officer biased the outcome | Some evidence supported guilt; impartiality not violated | No due process violation; evidence supported dispositions; claim rejected |
| Qualified immunity | Rights were clearly established and violated by biased procedures | No violation found; in any event not clearly established | Alternate basis: grant because no constitutional violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2004) (right to fair and impartial hearing officer; some evidence standard)
- Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2004) (reliable evidence supports guilt; substantial evidence standard for hearings)
- Francis v. Coughlin, 891 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1989) (impartiality considerations in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 1996) (impartiality expectations for prison officials; not as high as judges)