Opinion
C.A. No.: N14C-06-083 FSS
11-05-2015
JOHN E. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN REYNOLDS, BRUCE BURTON, PERRY PHELPS, Defendants.
cc: Prothonotary (Criminal) Roopa Sabesan, Esquire Jason W. Staib, Esquire John E. Miller, pro se, Plaintiff (via - U.S. Mail)
ORDER
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - DENIED, Upon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment - GRANTED.
1. On July 14, 2014, the court dismissed parts of Plaintiff's complaint, limiting this litigation to the procedural due process claims that Plaintiff, an inmate, was disciplined without a hearing or opportunity to present a defense.
Miller v. Reynolds, No. CV N14C-06-083 FSS, 2014 WL 4948192 (Del. Super. July 14, 2014) (ORDER).
2. In its July 14, 2014 order and again on March 27, 2015, the court explained: "[T]his court does not generally review prison administrative issues." The court also plainly stated that "Plaintiff was only entitled to litigate at taxpayer expense his claims:
Id.; Miller v. Reynolds, No. CV N14C-06-083 FSS, 2015 WL 5138151 (Del. Super. Mar. 27, 2015) (ORDER).
1. Plaintiff was not permitted to call any witnesses at his disciplinary hearing;
2. Plaintiff was not permitted to introduce any evidence; and
3. Plaintiff was not given a chance to be fully heard."
3. On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which was supplemented August 14, 2015. On September 30, 2015, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Briefing was complete October 16, 2015.
4. Plaintiff takes issue with his not being able to call witnesses. Plaintiff, however, does not have an unconditional right to call and confront witnesses in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Based on the record, Plaintiff requested six witnesses. At the time, one of the six had passed away, and one was no longer in custody. Plaintiff wanted two other witnesses to testify about facts to which Defendants had stipulated. Plaintiff wanted the other two witnesses to testify as to conversations they had with a Defendant when Plaintiff was not present.
See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 567 (1974) ("If confrontation and cross-examination of those furnishing evidence against the inmate were to be allowed as a matter of course, as in criminal trials, there would be considerable potential for havoc inside the prison walls.").
5. The court is not addressing Plaintiff's other claim: that corrections officers allegedly searched his cell and confiscated some items. That does not relate to whether Plaintiff received notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. As such, the court is expressly not relying on Department of Correction records showing Plaintiff's cell was not even searched.
6. Plaintiff was told that the court would not allow him to turn this litigation into an impermissible appeal from a prison disciplinary proceeding. So, as mentioned, this case turns solely on whether DOC considered evidence at the hearing and whether Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to present his side in a meaningful way. Based on the relevant record, viewed favorably to him, Plaintiff has failed to show that he was denied a fair opportunity to be heard.
See Miller, 2015 WL 5138151 (Del. Super. Mar. 27, 2015)(ORDER). --------
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: November 5, 2015
/s/ Fred S. Silverman
Judge cc: Prothonotary (Criminal)
Roopa Sabesan, Esquire
Jason W. Staib, Esquire
John E. Miller, pro se, Plaintiff (via - U.S. Mail)