511 F. App'x 28
2d Cir.2013Background
- Shabazz alleged due-process violations from two disciplinary hearings resulting in keeplock confinement.
- Bezio served as hearing officer in the first hearing and allegedly prejudged the evidence and relied on Rice’s written report.
- Chase conducted the second hearing after Shabazz’s keeplock; Bezio allegedly provided rehearsed testimony post-hearing.
- Disciplinary dispositions hinged on whether Shabazz could wear dreadlocks; record ambiguities raised questions about the reliability of the evidence.
- New York AG opinions reversed and expunged the guilty determinations; district court dismissed without addressing amendment potential.
- Court vacated district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including possible amendment to add Norman Bezio as a defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shabazz states a plausible due-process claim | Shabazz asserts liberty interest from confinement | Defendants contend no plausible due-process violation | Remand required; not decided on the merits |
| Was the keeplock confinement atypical and significant | Aggregate keeplock time may satisfy Sandin standard | Record insufficient to show atypical hardship | Remand to develop record and consider amendable claims |
| Did Bezio prejudge the evidence as an impartial decisionmaker | Bezio researched and predecided guilt | Impartiality not at standard of judge; some deference permitted | Record insufficient to determine impartiality; remand to develop |
| Whether the district court should allow amendment to add Norman Bezio | Possible due-process claim against Norman Bezio not reviewed | No basis in record to dismiss without amendment | Remand appropriate to consider leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court 1995) (due-process analysis for confinement involves atypical, significant hardship)
- Arce v. Walker, 139 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 1998) (protected liberty interest requires atypical, significant deprivation)
- Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009) (duration and conditions of confinement inform Sandin analysis)
- Hanrahan v. Doling, 331 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2003) (duration as a factor in disciplinary-confinement review)
- Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2004) (reliability of evidence and due-process requirements in prison hearings)
- Taylor v. Rodriguez, 238 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2001) (need for reliable evidence in disciplinary proceedings)
- Patterson v. Coughlin, 905 F.2d 564 (2d Cir. 1990) (impartial decisionmaking in prison contexts)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (granting leave to amend when substantial claims may exist)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (liberal reading of pro se complaints; leave to amend)
- Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1991) (liberal reading of pro se complaints and leave to amend)
- Wilkins v. Mason Tenders Dist. Council Pension Fund, 445 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand when factual development is needed)
- Mills v. Harris, Must insert a relevant 2d Cir. case if cited in opinion (2d Cir. 2009) (placeholder for consistency)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (threading plausibility standard for complaint plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading standard to show plausible claim)