Opinion
# 2016-018-736 Claim No. 125398
10-14-2016
TRAVIS JAMES v. STATE OF NEW YORK
TRAVIS JAMES Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant is entitled to damages for nine days of additional, wrongful confinement and Claimant's property claim is granted in part.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-018-736 |
| Claimant(s): | TRAVIS JAMES |
| Claimant short name: | JAMES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125398 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | TRAVIS JAMES Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | October 14, 2016 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant filed a claim on December 15, 2014, seeking damages for his alleged wrongful confinement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for 90 days because Defendant denied him due process during a Tier III hearing at Watertown Correctional Facility on July 11, 2014. Claimant alleges that he appealed the disciplinary findings, which were administratively reversed on October 1, 2014, but he was not released from the SHU until nine days later on October 10, 2014.
Claimant is also seeking damages for his personal effects and commissary items that were lost or destroyed during his time in the SHU. The Defendant interposed a verified answer and raised nine affirmative defenses. A trial was held by video conference on July 27, 2016.
Claimant introduced into evidence the Inmate Claim Form and Inmate Grievance Complaint; the Hearing Disposition Form, dated 7/29/2014; and the Review of Superintendent's Hearing signed by Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Program, Albert Prack, dated 10/1/14. Defendant introduced into evidence the Witness Interview Notice and the July 29, 2014 Disciplinary Hearing Transcript.
Claimant's Exhibit 1.
Claimant's Exhibit 2.
Claimant's Exhibit 3.
Defendant's Exhibit A.
Defendant's Exhibit B.
Wrongful Confinement
Claimant testified that he was taken out of his cell on July 10, 2014, and placed in the SHU after being issued a misbehavior report based upon information from a confidential informant. Claimant was accused of being involved in a plot involving a weapon and a plan to harm another inmate while he was incarcerated at Watertown Correctional Facility. The misbehavior report attached to his claim reflects that Claimant was charged with a violation of section 113.10, possession of a weapon; section 113.11, possession of an altered item; and a violation of section 107.20 for providing a false statement or information (7 NYCRR 107.20; 113.10; 113.11). Claimant testified that he was not able to present the proper witnesses on his behalf at the disciplinary hearing. The hearing examiner, Deborah Kinderman, Deputy Superintendent of Programs, adjourned the hearing on July 11, 2014, so that the witnesses Claimant described could be located and interviewed. However, the witnesses who were questioned were not the witnesses Claimant sought. Claimant testified he was not able to identify the witnesses by their names, except for the first name of one witness. Claimant only gave the locations of their cells. Claimant alleges he requested another adjournment to locate the witnesses but Ms. Kinderman, who was called to testify at trial for the State, did not recall this fact. According to the Witness Interview Notice, introduced by the State, the two witnesses who were contacted did not want to testify because they either did not know Claimant or were residing in a different housing unit. On July 29, 2014, the disciplinary hearing resumed. Claimant was found guilty of all charges and was given three months in the SHU, and loss of privileges: recreation, packages, telephone, and commissary.
Defendant's Exhibit A.
Defendant's Exhibit A.
Claimant's Exhibit 2.
To successfully establish a cause of action for wrongful confinement, a claimant must show that (1) defendant confined him; (2) claimant was conscious of the confinement; (3) claimant did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not privileged (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]). Although Claimant must assert, as part of his wrongful confinement claim, that the confinement was not privileged (see Donald v State of New York, 17 NY3d 389, 395 [2011]), it is actually Defendant who bears the burden to establish privilege (Id.; Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 NY2d 420, 425 [1983]; Gonzalez v State of New York, 110 AD2d 810, 812 [2d Dept 1985]). In the prison setting, disciplinary confinement is privileged if it is done in compliance with the governing rules and regulations (Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 402 [Ct Cl 1986]). Claimant bears the burden to establish that a violation of the rules and regulations proximately caused him injury or damage (Ruggiero v State of New York, UID No. 2010-015-187 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Nov. 1, 2010]; Rivera v State of New York, UID No. 2006-028-008 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Feb. 8, 2006]). The administrative reversal of the disciplinary findings alone, without proof of a violation of nondiscretionary rules and regulations, does not establish a wrongful confinement cause of action (see Loret v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1159 [3d Dept 2013]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765 [3d Dept 2001]; Barnes v State of New York, UID No. 2013-015-561 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Aug. 21, 2013]).
Disciplinary actions in the State's prisons also often involve discretionary determinations made by correction officials, which are quasi-judicial in nature, and those actions and decisions are protected by absolute immunity as long as they act within the scope of their authority and do not violate the governing rules and regulations (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 219 [1988]; Loret v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1159 [3d Dept 2013]; Minieri v State of New York, 204 AD2d 982 [4th Dept 1994]). Even an abuse of discretion is insulated from liability by absolute immunity, as long as the decisions or actions were consistent with general policies and procedures (Arteaga,72 NY2d at 219; Holloway, 285 AD2d at 766).
Section 254.5 of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Rules and Regulations (7 NYCRR §254.5 [a]) provides:
"a) The inmate may call witnesses on his behalf provided their testimony is material, is not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. If permission to call a witness is denied, the hearing officer shall give the inmate a written statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals presented."
Here, Claimant testified that he was not able to present witnesses on his behalf during the hearing, and that this is the proximate cause of his confinement. However, Claimant gave a terse description of the witnesses, did not know their full names or DIN numbers, and only had a guess in which cube they were housed. Some effort was made to locate the two witnesses, who, according to the Witness Interview Notice, were contacted and did not want to testify.
On cross-examination, Claimant admitted that he did not know any information about the witnesses other than their approximate location and only one of their first names. An inmate's conditional right to call witnesses may be violated where either no good faith reason is articulated for the refusal to testify, or the hearing examiner relies upon the hearsay report of an officer for the ostensible reason for a refusal (see Barnes v LeFevre, 69 NY2d 649 [1986]; Matter of Peterson v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1051 [3d Dept 2016]; Matter of Johnson v Prack, 122 AD3d 1323 [4th Dept 2014]). Here, Claimant could not identify the specific witnesses he sought, so Claimant has not established the hearing examiner violated Claimant's conditional right to call witnesses. However, even if Defendant violated the regulation, Claimant did not show how the absence of information or testimony from these witnesses was a cause of his injury or loss (see Lewis v State of New York, UID No. 2007-028-560 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., July 16, 2007]).
Excessive Wrongful Confinement
Claimant successfully appealed the disciplinary findings from the Superintendent's Hearing on July 29, 2014. On October 1, 2014, those disciplinary findings were reversed without explanation. Thereafter, Claimant remained in the SHU until October 10, 2014, an additional nine days.
Once the authority for restrictive placement is removed because the underlying findings of misbehavior are reversed, Defendant has a ministerial duty to release Claimant from the SHU (see Minieri, 204 AD2d at 984; Ruggiero v State of New York, UID No. 2010-015-187 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Nov. 1, 2010]; Ramos v State of New York, UID No. 2000-029-017 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Sept. 8, 2000]). Defendant has not demonstrated any statutory or regulatory authority for continuing to keep Claimant detained in the SHU after the reversal of his misbehavior report and, in fact, provided no explanation for the delay. Claimant has established his claim for excessive wrongful confinement (Minieri, 204 AD2d at 982-983).
Property Claim
After the misbehavior report was issued, Claimant viewed his property a day or two later where he contends that about $60 worth of food, drinks, stamps, and tobacco were either missing or destroyed. Claimant filed an Inmate Grievance Complaint on July 28, 2014, and an Inmate Claim Form on July 30, 2014. Claimant testified that after his time in the SHU, he was then transferred to Marcy Correctional Facility, and that his remaining property arrived tampered with - oatmeal and orange soda poured all over the contents. Claimant requested his I-64 form from Watertown Correctional Facility, dated August 8, 2014, but testified that he never received it. Claimant's testimony is that he exhausted all of his administrative remedies on August 28, 2014.
Claimant's Exhibit 1.
Claimant's Exhibit 1.
In order for an inmate to bring a claim for lost property in the Court of Claims, the inmate must exhaust all of the personal property administrative remedies provided for inmates by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). The New York State Code of Rules and Regulations indicates that DOCCS has established a two-tier system of administrative review for the loss of inmates' personal property which consists of an initial review and an appeal (7 NYCRR § 1700.3).
Claimant filed an Inmate Claim Form dated July 30, 2014, for the items he alleges he lost when he was placed in the SHU on July 10, 2014. The Inmate Claim Form does not reflect the administrative review or appeal of his claim. However, since Defendant did not dispute that Claimant exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court will accept Claimant's testimony.
See Claimant's Exhibit 1.
To establish a prima facie case of negligent bailment, Claimant must establish his personal property was placed in the custody of facility officials and not delivered to Claimant upon demand (Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept 1977]). A prima facie case creates a presumption of negligent bailment, and shifts to Defendant the burden of coming forward with proof that it exercised ordinary care (Noworyta v Klippert, 122 AD2d 548 [4th Dept 1986]).
Here, Claimant testified that the property listed on the Inmate Claim Form was locked up when he was transferred to the SHU, and items were packed up by the State but were missing when he viewed his property. The only values provided are those listed on the Inmate Claim Form, but Defendant did not dispute items lost or their values. Claimant did not establish a value for some of the items listed. Claimant has established the following items were lost:
1 Bag of coffee $ 1.30
1 Box of blueberry cakes $ 1.79
3 Cans of Jack Mack $ 6.00
3 Packages of Chocolate Chip Cookies $ 4.06
4 Pouches of tuna $ 5.00
2 Packs of cookies $ 1.86
3 Bags of potato chips $ 2.25
15 $.49 stamps $ 7.35
Claimant also noted a loss of 15 "sups" for $3.00 on the Inmate Claim Form. It is not clear to what "sups" refers, and Claimant did not identify what this was or provide any testimony regarding these items. In reviewing the list of lost property on cross-examination, these items were not referenced and, therefore, no award is given. --------
There is no proof that Claimant ever filed a claim form for the property he alleges was damaged when he was transferred to Marcy Correctional Facility. Since Claimant has failed to establish that he complied with the requirements set forth in the Court of Claims Act to file a lost property claim in this Court for those items, he has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over those items of lost property (see Williams v State of New York, 38 AD3d 646 [2d Dept 2007]).
Accordingly, the Court finds Claimant's confinement in the SHU from July 10, 2014 until October 1, 2014 was privileged, and any violation of the regulations was not shown to have proximately caused Claimant injury or damage. The Court finds that the additional nine days in the SHU after the administrative reversal of the disciplinary findings were not privileged and not explained. Claimant is, therefore, entitled to damages of $30 per day for the nine days of additional, wrongful confinement, for total damages of $270.00.
Claimant's property claim is granted in part and Claimant is awarded the sum of $29.61, inclusive of interest.
To the extent Claimant paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act section 11-a (2). All motions not previously decided are hereby DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
October 14, 2016
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims