Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Eric Walker, a pro se inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force, retaliation, and due process violations arising from events at Washington Correctional Facility on December 2, 2015.
- Defendants: Captain R. Ball (hearing officer), Acting Appeals Director A. Rodriguez, Correction Officer St. Johns, and Sergeant Wm. Noonan (misbehavior report author).
- After an incident, Noonan issued a misbehavior report charging attempted assault on staff, violent conduct, and failure to obey; Walker was placed in SHU and received a disciplinary hearing on December 9, 2015.
- Walker had an employee assistant, waived/declined most witnesses but later requested inmate Devon Williams (who refused to testify); Noonan and St. Johns testified and Ball found Walker guilty; Rodriguez affirmed on appeal.
- Walker did not file any DOCCS grievances about the December 2 events and has not responded to defendants’ summary judgment motion or updated his address; the court lost contact with him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute/address update | Walker did not provide current address or respond to motion (no argument presented) | Defendants asked dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 due to lack of prosecution and notice | Recommended dismissal under Rule 41 for failure to prosecute and to update address; factors weigh in favor of dismissal |
| Whether claims against Noonan and St. Johns exhausted administrative remedies | Walker concedes or offers no evidence of filing grievances regarding Dec. 2 misconduct; raised general concerns that mail tampering may have affected grievance filing | Defendants show DOCCS grievance procedure was available and Walker used it for other issues | Held Walker failed to exhaust; claims against Noonan and St. Johns dismissed for non-exhaustion |
| Whether Ball and Rodriguez violated due process in disciplinary proceeding | Walker contends Ball was disqualified/bias and hearing procedure violated DOCCS regs; challenges sufficiency of evidence | Defendants show advance notice, assistant, opportunity to call witnesses, transcript, written disposition, and testimony supporting the finding; Rodriguez only reviewed appeal | Held disciplinary process complied with Wolff; Ball impartial; sufficient "some evidence"; Rodriguez not liable for affirming a valid hearing |
| Whether defendants entitled to qualified immunity | Walker asserts constitutional violations (due process) based on alleged procedural/regulatory errors | Defendants argue no clearly established federal right was violated and law does not convert state-regulatory breaches into constitutional violations; at minimum law unclear on "some evidence" standard | Held Ball and Rodriguez entitled to qualified immunity; reasonable officials could have believed their actions lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due process requirements in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (availability requirement for exhaustion under PLRA)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)