Williams v. Bonano

Background

Willie Williams, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sgt. Bonano, C.O. Russien, Cheverez, and C.O. Cunningham. He alleged that the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process in connection with a prison cell search and disciplinary hearing. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

According to the allegations accepted as true for purposes of the motion, Russein entered Williams’s cell on March 22, 2023, frisked him, and searched the cell. The search uncovered an unauthorized cell phone, headphones, and a charging cable connected to a phone charger or adapter. Williams alleged that the ticket authorizing the search lacked an endorsement required by Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directives.

At a disciplinary hearing on April 4, 2023, Cheverez served as hearing officer. Williams alleged that the defendants gave conflicting accounts about whether Bonano had authorized or witnessed the search and whether Cunningham had been present. Williams also alleged that requests to call Williams and another corrections officer as witnesses were denied, that he could not speak at the hearing, and that he was found guilty. He received 60 days in special housing, in addition to 13 days of pre-hearing confinement, and lost phone, commissary, and package privileges for 60 days.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the amended complaint as asserting a procedural due process claim concerning defects in the disciplinary hearing. To state such a claim, Williams had to plausibly allege both a protected liberty interest and inadequate procedures that caused its deprivation.

The court held that Williams’s total 73 days in special housing did not, by itself, amount to an “atypical and significant hardship” sufficient to create a protected liberty interest. The court also held that the additional loss of phone, commissary, and package privileges did not make the confinement sufficiently unusual or severe. Because Williams did not plausibly allege the required liberty interest, the court concluded that he had not plausibly alleged a due process violation.

The court separately addressed allegations that the defendants failed to follow prison directives during the cell search. It held that failing to follow Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directives or prison regulations does not, by itself, create a federal constitutional claim. Those claims therefore did not support relief under Section 1983.

The court noted that Williams did not appear to assert that the frisk was unreasonable. It also stated that an incarcerated person generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a prison cell under the Fourth Amendment, but the court did not consider a Fourth Amendment claim concerning the frisk because Williams had not challenged it as unreasonable.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice. The court permitted Williams to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the opinion’s date, and stated that any such complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the amended complaint and include all claims, defendants, and factual allegations he wants the court to consider. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail Williams a copy of the opinion.