Smith v. Arnone, 700 F. App'x 55

Plaintiff Devon Smith, a Connecticut prisoner proceeding pro se, was accused by a female correctional officer of slapping her buttocks; a disciplinary hearing found him guilty and he was given 30 days punitive segregation and transferred to Northern Correctional Institution (NCI).
A related criminal charge was nolled. Smith claimed prison officials denied him a copy of the disciplinary report and failed to preserve a video of the incident.
Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his procedural due process rights and First Amendment retaliation for destruction/non-preservation of evidence and withholding the report.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Smith appealed. The panel reviewed the record de novo.
The court held Smith failed to establish a protected liberty interest from his confinement and failed to adduce evidence supporting a retaliation claim. The judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process: whether confinement imposed an atypical and significant hardship triggering prison disciplinary due process	Smith argued his confinement at NCI (including punitive and ensuing administrative segregation) created an atypical, significant hardship and he was denied required process (copy of report, etc.)	Defendants argued the punitive confinement was 30 days (below the typical threshold) and Smith provided no evidence conditions were unusually onerous or that administrative segregation extended the punitive period	Held: Smith failed to show a protected liberty interest under Sandin; no due process violation because he did not prove atypical/ significant hardship
First Amendment retaliation: whether defendants’ failure to preserve video and provide the report retaliated against protected activity	Smith claimed the withholding/destruction was retaliation for protected conduct and harmed his ability to defend himself	Defendants argued Smith offered no evidence that (1) protected speech occurred, (2) adverse action was taken because of it, or (3) there was causation; allegations alone insufficient	Held: Affirmed dismissal—Smith produced no evidence to satisfy elements of a retaliation claim

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (deciding when prison disciplinary confinements create a protected liberty interest)
Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57 (setting procedural due process requirements for prison disciplinary hearings)
Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 (summary judgment standard and construing evidence for non-movant)
Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120 (standard of review for summary judgment in this circuit)
Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (noting confinements under 101 days generally do not create liberty interests absent unusually onerous conditions)
Proctor v. LeClaire, 846 F.3d 597 (framework for procedural due process claims)
Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379 (elements required to prove First Amendment retaliation)
In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501 (allegations alone insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Colon v. Howard, 215 F.3d 227 (confinement length and conditions relevant to Sandin analysis)
Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum, 722 F.3d 444 (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases)