Opinion
CV164007715
08-17-2018
Jerome RIDDICK v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Hon. John M. Newson J.
Procedural History
This matter represents the consolidation of complaints filed by the petitioner alleging he was not provided appropriate "due process" in the course of prison disciplinary hearings related to three separate incidents. According to the evidence presented before the court, the petitioner was given separate disciplinary reports ("DRs") on May 22, 2015, November 19, 2015, and December 9, 2015. In each of the incidents in question, the petitioner elected to have a disciplinary hearing, was found to have committed various violations in each matter, and sanctions with the loss of various privileges and credits. The petitioner challenges each hearing, claiming lack of appropriate due process. The case was tried before the Court on July 19, 2018. For purposes of simplicity, the court will address them in order of time.
Law and Discussion
"The due process protections afforded a prison inmate do not equate to ‘the full panoply of rights’ due to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. [539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1794) ]. Notably, there is no right to counsel or to confrontation at prison disciplinary hearings ... Nevertheless, an inmate is entitled to advance written notice of the charges against him; a hearing affording him a reasonable opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence; a fair and impartial hearing officer; and a written statement of the disposition, including the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary actions taken ... Since Wolff, the Supreme Court has clarified that judicial review of the written findings required by due process is limited to determining whether the disposition is supported by ‘some evidence.’ Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). This standard is extremely tolerant and is satisfied if there is any evidence in the record that supports the disciplinary ruling ... Nevertheless, as this court recently explained, the some evidence standard requires some ‘reliable evidence.’ " (Citations omitted, quotation marks omitted.) Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 69 (2d Cir. 2004).
May 22, 2015, Disciplinary Report CGI 1505058
On or about May 22, 2015, a disciplinary report was issued against the petitioner for "security tampering," the specific allegation being that the petitioner received a self-addressed stamped envelope from his attorney, that he altered the mailing address on the pre-addressed envelope, and inserted the address of a third party and attempted to mail the letter out. As a result, he was issued a disciplinary report for "security tampering." Following a disciplinary hearing on the matter, the petitioner was found guilty of the offense and received sanctions, including fifteen days of punitive segregation ("PS"), thirty days loss of recreation privileges ("LOR"), sixty days loss of mail privileges ("LOM"), and forfeiture of ten days of risk reduction earned credits ("RREC"). The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the administrative procedures he was found to have violated were unconstitutionally vague. Additionally, even if not unconstitutionally vague, the petitioner alleges that his conduct does not fall within the definition of the offense charged. The petitioner’s claim fails for the following reasons.
Department of Corrections Administrative Directive 9.5.12 Class "A" Offenses, provides, in pertinent part: "AA. Security Tampering . Tampering with locking, security or safety devices, or any unauthorized or fraudulent use of the inmate phone or mail system . (Emphasis added.)
At trial, the respondent presented credible evidence that inmates are required to pay for their own postage and mailings, but are allowed exceptions for legal communications. In the present case, they determined that the defendant had altered the mailing address on the envelope containing the free postage he had been provided by his legal counsel in order to send social communications to a non-lawyer and that this conduct was deemed to be an "unauthorized use" of the mail system within the meaning of Administrative Directive 9.5 sec. 12. (See footnote 1.) The defendant was provided with an opportunity for a hearing and, by his own admission, was allowed to present all evidence and arguments he desired in order to defend himself from the allegations. Under the circumstances, the Court can find no violation of the defendant’s rights. The disposition is supported by "some evidence"; Superintendent v. Hill, supra, 472 U.S. 455; and it is neither irrational or arbitrary for the respondent to determine that this conduct would fall within the definition of "unauthorized or fraudulent" use of the mail. In other words, the evidence appears reliable. Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 69 (2d Cir. 2004). As such, the petitioner’s claim fails.
November 19, 2015, Disciplinary Report NCI-1511092
On or about November 19, 2015, while housed at the Cheshire Correctional Institute, the petitioner was charged with committing an assault on staff during an incident in which Department of Corrections officers entered his cell after he covered the only window in the door, completely obstructing the view into the cell. From the testimony and evidence presented, it can reasonably be determined that when staff entered the cell, the petitioner, who has a long history of disciplinary incidents within the Department of Corrections, took up a fighting stance. He was directed to "turn around" and face the wall so that hand restraints could be put on, which he refused. The petitioner was verbally and physically non-compliant with directions. A corrections officer sprayed the petitioner in the face with a chemical agent prior to attempting to subdue him and the petitioner punched him in the face. The petitioner was issued a disciplinary citation for violating Administrative Directive 9.5, section 12D for assaulting staff. The petitioner was almost immediately transferred to the Northern Correctional Institution, where his disciplinary hearing was held. Following the hearing, he was found guilty of the offense and sanctioned with thirty days "PS," ninety days loss of phone privileges ("LOP"), and 90 days loss of commissary ("LOC"). The petitioner challenges this decision on several grounds, none of which are successful.
Evidence presented also indicates that the petitioner was charged criminally for this incident, however, that is not directly relevant to this court’s decision.
Administrative Directive 9.5, 12D. Assault on a Department of Correction Employee. Intentionally striking or attacking a Department of Correction employee with or without the use of an object or substance or acting in such a reckless manner that one’s actions cause an assault of a Department of Correction employee.
First, the petitioner claims that he was not given written notice of the alleged offenses within twenty-four hours, as required by Administrative Directive 9.5, sec. 21. This claim is without merit. Some further factual background is necessary in order to understand the claim.
Administrative Directive 9.5, sec. 21 Notice of Disciplinary Proceedings, provides, in pertinent part, "[a] complete and legible photocopy of the disciplinary report shall be delivered to the inmate within 24 hours of the discovery of the inmate’s alleged misconduct ..."
When the petitioner was transferred to Northern CI following this incident at Cheshire CI, he was immediately placed on "mental health observation" ("MHO") status. The evidence provided indicates that an inmate on MHO status is placed in a special cell unit and is prohibited from having anything in the cell unit, including outside papers, except that which is already there. Unable to provide the petitioner with physical copies of the disciplinary complaints, disciplinary officer Thomas Leone testified that he read the disciplinary reports ("DRs") to the petitioner, showed them to him through the MHO observation window, and left copies with the MHO unit medical officer for the petitioner to take back to his cell when he was released from MHO. The petitioner subsequently made claims that the original DRs were not transferred with him when he was relocated from the MHO to his regular cell unit a day or so later, so disciplinary staff provided him with additional copies. While the petitioner does not dispute any of this evidence, he claims that DOC failed to meet the notice requirements, arguing that anything less than the DRs being physically placed into his hands within the required 24-hour period should be considered insufficient notice.
Again, it warrants little discussion that the record before this court indicates that the petitioner was provided the minimal notice and due process he is entitled to in this matter, and there is nothing in the law, nor has the petitioner provided any such citations, supporting a claim that anything less than placing a DR into a petitioner’s hands constitutes inadequate notice. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. 556.
The petitioner also alleges that he was prohibited from presenting certain defenses, such as that the corrections officer he allegedly assaulted was not in the performance of his lawful duties, and that he had a mental health issue which required a proper mental health screening before disciplinary hearings could proceed per DOC policies, he eventually conceded during cross examination that he had, in fact, been allowed to present all such defenses to the hearing officer. As such, those claims also fail.
Finally, the petitioner also made a vague claim that the hearing officer was biased against him, because he had allegedly been disciplined for exposing himself to her on a previous occasion. In short, however, the petitioner failed to present any credible evidence to support this claim, so that also fails. Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 51 Conn.App. 615, 622-24, 724 A.2d 508, cert. denied, 248 Conn. 905, 731 A.2d 309 (1999) (for the proposition that it is the petitioner’s burden to present evidence in support of his claims).
December 10, 2015, Disciplinary Report NCI-1512024
Finally, the petitioner also made claims that his due process rights were violated in relation to disciplinary action taken against him for an incident on December 10, 2015, at the Northern Correction facility where he was, again, found to have engaged in "security tampering" in violation of Administrative Directive 10.7, Inmate Communications. The discipline this time was for unauthorized use of the phones to make an outgoing social call at a time during which the petitioner lost his phone privileges for prior violations of DOC policies. He was found guilty of the offenses after a disciplinary hearing and sanctions with fifteen days of PS, ninety days LOP, 90 days LOC, and forfeiture of 10 days risk reduction earned credit.
As to this claim, however, the petitioner failed to present any affirmative evidence in support of his allegations. The petitioner conceded this fact when raised by the respondent during closing arguments. It is the petitioner’s burden to present evidence in support of his claims. Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 51 Conn.App. 615, 622-24, 724 A.2d 508, cert. denied, 248 Conn. 905, 731 A.2d 309 (1999). Having failed to do so, the petitioner’s claim fails.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Judgment shall enter in favor of the Respondent.