Jackson v. Wilburn

Background

Craig Jackson, who was incarcerated at the time, sued Albert Prack, Hearing Officer Henry Moore, Hearing Officer Douglas Wilburn, Sergeant John Frunzi, and Correctional Officers Bruce Tucker, Abiz Celaj, and Robert Lyons. Jackson represented himself. His Second Amended Complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 based on two prison disciplinary matters involving alleged marijuana possession or use.

The first matter began after Tucker found a hand-rolled cigarette during a frisk on February 21, 2014. A disciplinary report was issued on February 24, and Moore presided over the hearing. Moore found Jackson guilty, and Prack later modified the sentence.

The second matter began after a urine sample collected and tested by prison officers produced two positive results for THC. Celaj issued a disciplinary report on February 26, 2014, and Wilburn presided over the later hearing. Jackson argued that his medication might have caused a false positive and requested additional documents and testimony, including testimony from the testing-machine manufacturer. Wilburn found him guilty, and the sentence was later reduced. The determination was eventually administratively reversed and expunged after Jackson had served the SHU sentences.

Jackson’s Second Amended Complaint alleged retaliation, conspiracy to violate due process, and failure to intervene. The defendants moved to dismiss. Jackson did not file opposition papers, but the court reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint rather than granting the motion solely because it was unopposed.

February 24 Disciplinary Report

The court held that the claims based on the February 24 disciplinary report were barred by the three-year statute of limitations for claims under Sections 1983 and 1985. Jackson filed the Second Amended Complaint in December 2018, but the alleged conduct connected to that report ended by June 5, 2014.

The court rejected Jackson’s argument that these claims should relate back to his original complaint. The original complaint focused on the February 26 disciplinary report and did not give the defendants notice of claims involving the separate February 24 report. The court therefore dismissed the claims arising from the February 24 report as untimely.

Due Process Claims Based on the February 26 Report

To state a procedural due-process claim, Jackson had to plausibly allege both a protected liberty interest and denial of the process required by law. The court concluded that Jackson plausibly alleged a protected liberty interest because he described ninety days in the Special Housing Unit while other inmates threw human waste around him and an unbearable smell affected his ability to eat.

The court nevertheless found that Jackson did not adequately plead a due-process violation during the disciplinary hearing. Even assuming the list of medications that could cause false-positive results was incomplete, Jackson did not allege that his medication could actually cause a false positive or explain how a fuller list or consultation with medical staff would likely have changed the hearing’s result. The court treated this lack of alleged prejudice as a harmless error.

The court also held that Wilburn did not violate due process by refusing to call a witness from the testing-machine manufacturer. Jackson did not allege that the machine was defective or explain why the witness was necessary. The court likewise found no actionable violation based on Wilburn’s refusal to provide the testing officer’s certification, because Jackson did not allege that the officer was uncertified and Wilburn could rely on the officer’s testimony.

The court further held that the guilty finding was supported by at least some evidence, including testimony about the alleged marijuana possession, the handling of the urine sample, and the urine-test results. It added that, even if a constitutional violation had occurred, Wilburn was entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted rights were not clearly established in the circumstances described.

The court dismissed the due-process claim against Wilburn and also dismissed the due-process claims against Tucker, Frunzi, Moore, and Prack because Jackson did not allege how those defendants were involved in conducting the February 26 disciplinary hearings. The related failure-to-intervene claims were also dismissed because Jackson did not establish an underlying constitutional violation.

Retaliation Claims

Jackson alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for filing a grievance against Tucker. He claimed that officials issued a false disciplinary report, denied him due process during the hearing, and transferred him to another facility.

The court dismissed the transfer-related claims because Jackson did not allege that any defendant was responsible for the transfer. It dismissed the claims against defendants who did not issue the February 26 report or preside over the related hearing because Jackson did not allege that they took the required adverse action. As to Celaj and Wilburn, the court found no plausible causal connection because Jackson did not allege that either defendant knew about his grievance against Tucker.

Conspiracy Claims

The court dismissed the conspiracy claims under Sections 1983 and 1985. Jackson’s allegations that the defendants fabricated charges, suppressed evidence, and acted together were conclusory and did not provide facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds. The court also stated that a conspiracy claim could not succeed without an underlying constitutional violation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to grant leave to amend. Jackson had already amended his complaint twice, had received notice of the alleged pleading deficiencies, and did not request another amendment or identify additional facts that could cure those deficiencies.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and closed the case. The opinion does not expressly describe the dismissal as “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”