Shabazz v. Bezio
669 F. App'x 592
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Raheem Shabazz, pro se, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amended complaint challenging two prison disciplinary hearings (April 17 and May 2, 2008).
- Shabazz alleged due process violations: hearing officer bias and decisions not supported by reliable evidence.
- At the April 17 hearing, Lt. G.R. Bezio served as hearing officer and had participated in investigating the incident; Bezio convicted Shabazz of disobeying a direct order but acquitted him on a separate charge.
- At the May 2 hearing, Shabazz claimed he saw Bezio conversing with Lt. P. Chase and believed they were rehearsing testimony; Bezio and Chase denied that allegation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Second Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, finding no sufficient evidence of bias and that decisions were supported by reliable evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearing officer bias violated due process at April 17 hearing | Bezio was biased because he both investigated and adjudicated the case | Participation in investigation does not automatically raise a federal due process violation; adjudicators presumed unbiased | No due process violation; participation alone insufficient; acquittal on another charge supports impartiality |
| Whether hearing officer bias violated due process at May 2 hearing | Bezio and Chase conferred and rehearsed testimony, undermining impartiality | Shabazz only speculates about the conversation; officers deny rehearsal; adjudicator presumed unbiased | No due process violation; unsupported speculation cannot overcome presumption of impartiality |
| Whether hearing decisions were supported by reliable evidence | Shabazz contends decisions lacked reliable evidence | Decisions rested on Shabazz’s testimony, Bezio’s testimony, and a misbehavior report | Held: decisions were supported by reliable evidence and satisfied due process requirements |
| Whether state-procedure violations (e.g., DOC rules) create federal due process violations | Shabazz points to DOC rule violations (investigator serving as hearing officer) | Violations of state procedures do not necessarily create federally protected due process rights | Held: state procedural violations alone do not establish a federal due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1999) (prison disciplinary hearings require a fair, impartial hearing officer)
- Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 1996) (prison adjudicators are presumed unbiased; impartiality standard lower than for judges)
- Francis v. Coughlin, 891 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1989) (conflicts in prison context tolerated where not of sufficient magnitude to violate due process)
- Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2004) (disciplinary findings must rest on some reliable evidence)
- Holcomb v. Lykens, 337 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2003) (state procedural statutes do not by themselves create federally protected due process entitlements)
- Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)