Colon v. Gunsett

Background

In a June 13, 2024 opinion and order, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court held that Jose Rivera Colon’s procedural due-process claim against Gutwein concerning the loss of good-time credits was barred by Heck v. Humphrey because the claim challenged the duration of his confinement. The court also held that Colon could proceed on a procedural due-process claim concerning the conditions of his confinement, including his time in a special housing unit, if he permanently waived claims related to the loss of good-time credits.

This type of waiver is called a Peralta waiver. At a July 19, 2024 case-management conference, Colon said he understood the requirement and intended to submit the waiver. His August 7 letter, however, said he wanted to continue his claims. The court found that letter did not clearly waive a specific constitutional claim. Because Colon was representing himself, the court prepared a waiver form and gave him until September 9, 2024, to sign and return it if he agreed to its terms.

Ruling

The court received an undated statement from Colon on August 20, 2024, written on the waiver form: “I’m not doing that I would like to continue with everything.” The court treated this as an unequivocal refusal to waive the good-time-credits claim. Applying Heck v. Humphrey, the court ordered that Colon’s procedural due-process claim against Gutwein be dismissed without prejudice, to the extent it challenged both the conditions and duration of his confinement. The Clerk was directed to terminate Gutwein as a defendant.

The court separately ordered that Colon’s excessive-force claim against Crofoot, Flanagan, and Hazelwood proceed. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.