McGriff v. Superintendent Keyser

Background

Dewitt McGriff, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Superintendent Keyser, Hearing Officer Polizzi, Director of the Special Housing Unit Venettozzi, and Investigator Stephen Keyser under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments arising from a prison disciplinary proceeding and his confinement.

According to the amended complaint, Investigator Keyser charged McGriff with soliciting the smuggling of contraband, abusing telephone privileges, visiting-procedure violations, and conspiracy. McGriff was held in special housing during the disciplinary proceedings and later received 45 days of keeplock confinement and loss of privileges. He alleged that the hearing relied on inadequately supported evidence, including a telephone recording and purported confidential-informant information. He also alleged that the special-housing conditions included contaminated food and loud construction noises, and that he was not given earplugs.

Before filing this federal case, McGriff challenged the disciplinary determination in state court. The New York Appellate Division annulled the findings concerning smuggling and conspiracy because they were not supported by substantial evidence and ordered those references expunged. The federal court held that the state proceeding did not decide whether the defendants violated McGriff’s federal constitutional rights and did not bar this lawsuit.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible claim. Because McGriff was representing himself, the court construed his allegations liberally but still required plausible factual allegations.

Due Process Claims

The court held that McGriff plausibly alleged a liberty interest concerning his 38 days in special housing. The alleged duration, combined with claims about contaminated food and severe construction noise that interfered with sleep, prayer, studying, and hearing preparation, could constitute an atypical and significant hardship. The court declined to dismiss the due-process claim concerning special housing against Hearing Officer Polizzi and Investigator Stephen Keyser. Their alleged involvement in the hearing and investigation was sufficient at the pleading stage, and the court declined to grant them qualified immunity at that point.

The court reached a different conclusion about the 45-day keeplock confinement. McGriff did not provide facts describing the conditions of keeplock confinement; allegations about unspecified lost privileges and general injury were conclusory. The court dismissed that due-process claim without prejudice and granted leave to amend.

The court dismissed McGriff’s due-process claims against Director Venettozzi and Superintendent Keyser. McGriff adequately alleged that Venettozzi was personally involved by reviewing and affirming the appeal, but the court granted Venettozzi qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct violated the Constitution. McGriff did not adequately allege Superintendent Keyser’s personal involvement in the disciplinary due-process violations.

Eighth Amendment Conditions-of-Confinement Claim

The court dismissed the claim based on dirty food because McGriff did not allege that the food was nutritionally inadequate or posed a health threat. The court nevertheless held that the alleged construction noise could plausibly be sufficiently serious, particularly because McGriff alleged that it interfered with sleep and that other people received ear protection while inmates did not.

McGriff also plausibly alleged that Superintendent Keyser knew about and disregarded the alleged risks after McGriff complained in person and in writing. The court therefore declined to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Superintendent Keyser, including on qualified-immunity grounds. The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims against Director Venettozzi, Hearing Officer Polizzi, and Investigator Stephen Keyser without prejudice because McGriff did not allege that they knew about the challenged conditions. McGriff was granted leave to amend those claims.

First Amendment Access-to-Courts Claim

The court dismissed McGriff’s First Amendment access-to-courts claim with prejudice. Although he alleged that his confinement limited his use of the law library, evidence gathering, and hearing preparation, he did not plausibly allege deliberate and malicious conduct or actual injury that frustrated a nonfrivolous legal claim. The court also noted that McGriff did not respond to the defendants’ arguments concerning this claim.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal-Protection Claim

The court dismissed the equal-protection claim with prejudice. McGriff relied on the different treatment of an alleged co-conspirator, but he did not plausibly allege that the other prisoner was a sufficiently identical comparator. The court also noted that McGriff failed to address the defendants’ arguments on this claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The due-process claim concerning special housing against Hearing Officer Polizzi and Investigator Stephen Keyser remained, as did the Eighth Amendment claim against Superintendent Keyser. The court dismissed the keeplock due-process claim without prejudice; dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims against Director Venettozzi, Hearing Officer Polizzi, and Investigator Stephen Keyser without prejudice; dismissed the due-process claims against Director Venettozzi and Superintendent Keyser; and dismissed the First Amendment and equal-protection claims as to all defendants. McGriff was allowed 30 days to file a second amended complaint reasserting the claims dismissed without prejudice.