Opinion
# 2020-015-075 Claim No. 134256 Motion No. M-95755
10-23-2020
WILLIAMS MASON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Williams Mason, Pro Se Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Charles Lim, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Pro se inmate's claim for wrongful confinement to the Special Housing Unit arising from the conduct of a prison disciplinary hearing was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Inasmuch as the claimant's contention that a drug testing Directive was violated implicates no constitutionally required due process safeguard, the State retained its immunity for quasi-judicial determinations.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-015-075 |
| Claimant(s): | WILLIAMS MASON |
| Claimant short name: | MASON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant. |
|---|---|
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134256 |
| Motion number(s): | M-95755 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Williams Mason, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Charles Lim, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | October 23, 2020 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) on the ground the claim fails to state a cause of action.
Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), seeks damages for the 29-day period he was confined to his cell on keeplock status following a prison disciplinary hearing in which he was found guilty of drug use and violating urinalysis testing procedures. Claimant alleges that his "minimum due process rights were violated because [DOCCS] relied on a faulty, unreliable testing procedure/mechanism, which they, themselves found to be unreliable. As a result, I was confined to [keeplock] status, totalling [sic] 29 days of wrongful confinement" (defendant's Exhibit A, Claim, ¶ 2).
Conduct of correctional facility employees taken in furtherance of authorized disciplinary measures is quasi-judicial in nature and entitled to absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]; Matter of Kairis v State of New York, 113 AD3d 942 [3d Dept 2014]; Loret v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1159 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 852 [2013]; Shannon v State of New York, 111 AD3d 1077 [3d Dept 2013]). Only where prison employees "exceed the scope of their authority or violate the governing statutes and regulations," may the cloak of absolute immunity be lost for those actions (Ramirez v State of New York, 175 AD3d 1635, 1636 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 902 [2020], quoting Miller v State of New York, 156 AD3d 1067, 1067 [3d Dept 2017]; see also Arteaga, 72 NY2d at 221; Loret, 106 AD3d at 1159; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765, 765 [3d Dept 2001]). Where an alleged violation implicates no constitutionally required due process safeguard (see generally Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539 [1974]; Matter of Texeira v Fischer, 26 NY3d 230, 234 [2015]), the State retains immunity for its quasi-judicial determinations (Ramirez, 175 AD3d 1635; but see Bottom v State of New York, 142 AD3d 1314 [4th Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 1177 [2017] [State was not immune from liability for a discretionary, albeit erroneous, denial of a witness at a prison disciplinary hearing]). A violation of DOCCS' drug testing directives does not constitute a due process violation (see Raimirez, 175 AD3d at 1638; Miller v State of New York, 156 AD3d at 1068). As a result, the Court need not address the elements of claimant's wrongful confinement cause of action because the defendant preserved its immunity defense by raising it as its sixth affirmative defense in the answer (defendant's Exhibit B). Inasmuch as a violation of one of DOCCS' drug-testing procedures does not constitute a due process violation so as to divest the State of absolute immunity, dismissal of the claim is required. Based on the forgoing, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
October 23, 2020
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:
1. Notice of motion dated August 3, 2020;
2. Affirmation in support dated August 3, 2020, with Exhibits A-C;
3. Claimant's undated opposition filed September 28, 2020.