Mackey v. Broomfield

Background

Terry Mackey, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and officers at San Quentin State Prison. The court previously construed the complaint as asserting a procedural due-process claim concerning a prison disciplinary proceeding. The court had also dismissed Mackey’s claim for a one-year credit against his sentence.

Mackey alleged that officials placed him in administrative segregation, retained him there, and conducted a disciplinary hearing on a Rules Violation Report concerning alleged harassment of another person. He claimed that the January 21, 2022 hearing officer refused to let him call a witness, failed to examine the evidence, and falsified the hearing results. Mackey filed this action on April 18, 2022.

Motion to dismiss

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the case was moot because the disciplinary report had been reissued and reheard on August 13, 2022.

The rehearing officer reviewed the charging document, incident report, telephone records, audio recordings, an investigative report, and Mackey’s statements. Mackey received the documents or an opportunity to review them before the hearing, made a statement, and requested that the person involved in the telephone calls appear as a witness. An investigative employee contacted that person, but she declined to participate. The rehearing officer found Mackey guilty of harassment based on a preponderance of the evidence and assessed 30 days’ loss of credit.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that prisoners facing disciplinary charges that could result in the loss of sentence credits are entitled to procedural protections, including notice of the charges, an opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses when appropriate, and a written explanation supported by some evidence. The court also explained that the remedy for an unfair hearing is generally another hearing, rather than automatic restoration of the underlying substantive benefit.

The court found that the defendants’ evidence showed that the alleged procedural violations at the first hearing were cured by the reissuance and rehearing of the disciplinary report. Mackey had received the only relief available for an unfair hearing—another hearing—and he filed no opposition disputing the defendants’ evidence or presenting contrary evidence. The court therefore found no longer-existing live case or controversy.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion to dismiss filed by J. Dougery, L. Bravo, D. Tierney, K. Andrade, M. Fitzgibbon, S. Willingham, R. Broomfield, O. Smith, B. Martin, V. Mitchell, and E. Sanders. The court DISMISSED the claims against those defendants with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions, including a motion to stay discovery, as moot. The opinion contains a reference to Rule 12(b)(6) in its general standard-of-review discussion, but the motion and final disposition identify Rule 12(b)(1) as the basis for dismissal.