Vazquez-Castro v. Office of General Counsel, 1:17-cv-00072

Plaintiff Jose A. Vazquez-Castro, a federal inmate at FCI Berlin (2015–2016), alleges staff misconduct concerning disciplinary charges, grievance access, handling of legal/administrative mail, placement in SHU, and a transfer to FCI Ray Brook.
In March 2015 Case Manager P. Deveney required Vazquez‑Castro to complete an extra “cop‑out” before giving him a BP‑8 grievance form, and later handed the BP‑8 response to the plaintiff’s cellmate for delivery.
Deveney issued two disciplinary incident reports (July 2015 Incident No. 2743875 and March 2016 Incident No. 2821910); Vazquez‑Castro alleges both were false, he was denied witnesses/staff representation, and sanctions (loss of visits/commissary/email) followed; one charge was later expunged.
In June 2016 Vazquez‑Castro was detained in SHU for three days pending investigation and then transferred to FCI Ray Brook; he alleges unequal treatment and that the transfer was retaliatory.
Procedurally, the magistrate conducted a preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2); plaintiff amended pleadings; the BOP Office of General Counsel completed its administrative review before decision, rendering the mandamus claim moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mandamus for BOP delay	Seek order compelling completion of administrative appeal review	BOP was untimely	Moot — agency completed review; claim dismissed
First Amendment retaliation (cop‑out and disciplinary charges)	Deveney imposed paperwork hurdle and filed false charges to punish petitioning activity	Requiring extra form and short sanctions are de minimis; transfers had legitimate penological reasons	Dismissed — paperwork and sanctions too de minimis to deter protected activity; transfer lacked factual showing of retaliatory motive
Due process for disciplinary proceedings	False reports, denial of witnesses/staff rep, and procedural violations violated Fifth Amendment	Sanctions imposed (temporary loss of email/commissary/visits; brief SHU stay) are not atypical or significant hardships	Dismissed — no protected liberty interest under Sandin; procedural due process claim fails
Privacy / Equal Protection	Improper delivery of grievance response to cellmate violated legal‑mail privacy; SHU placement before transfer treated him differently than another inmate	Single isolated delivery did not disclose confidential content; other inmate not shown similarly situated or intent to discriminate	Dismissed — isolated delivery insufficient to show privacy violation; equal protection fails for lack of similarly situated comparator and discriminatory intent

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints construed liberally)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim)
Hannon v. Beard, 645 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2011) (elements of prisoner First Amendment retaliation claim)
Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 2006) (de minimis adverse actions not actionable for retaliation)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest requires atypical and significant hardship)
Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2003) (isolated mail tampering usually insufficient for constitutional violation)
Davis v. Coakley, 802 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2015) (elements for equal protection claim)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (proof of discriminatory intent required for equal protection claim)