Falls v. Campbell

Background

Raiquan K. Falls, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sergeant E. Campbell, Correction Officers A. Pullen, Goodenough, and Cardwell, and Lieutenant Penney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by assaulting him and violated the Fourteenth Amendment by placing him in keeplock confinement for 150 days after three disciplinary hearings.

The motion addressed in this opinion was defendants’ partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The motion sought dismissal of only Falls’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim.

Falls alleged that the three hearings occurred on July 6, 2016, in his absence. He claimed he received no advance written notice of the charges and lacked a reasonable opportunity to call witnesses or present documentary evidence. The hearings resulted in 30 days of keeplock for the first hearing and 60 days each for the second and third hearings. He also alleged that he lost telephone and commissary privileges, was charged a $75 surcharge, and was often denied out-of-cell activities such as showers, recreation, sick-call appointments, and visits because of restrictions on his cell-door security slot.

Legal standard

To state a procedural due-process claim concerning prison discipline, a prisoner must plausibly allege both a protected liberty interest and an insufficient process that caused its deprivation. Prison discipline creates a protected liberty interest when it imposes an unusually severe hardship compared with the ordinary conditions of prison life. Courts consider both the length and the conditions of confinement.

The court treated Falls’s three disciplinary sentences as an aggregated 150-day sentence, which it characterized as an intermediate-length period of confinement. For such a period, the court explained that a detailed factual record is generally needed to compare the confinement conditions with ordinary prison conditions. A disciplinary hearing ordinarily requires advance written notice of the charges, a fair and impartial hearing officer, a reasonable opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, and a written explanation of the decision.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed with defendants that the loss of commissary and telephone privileges, the security-slot restrictions, and the $75 surcharge did not, standing alone, amount to an unusually severe hardship. The court noted that Falls alleged delays—not an absolute prohibition—in receiving some meals and attending activities because of the security-slot restrictions.

The court nevertheless found Falls’s allegations about being denied showers, visits, sick-call appointments, and recreation “most of the time” sufficient, though barely, to plausibly allege a protected liberty interest. Because the confinement lasted 150 days and the alleged conditions might have been unusual, the court concluded that further factual development was appropriate before deciding whether the confinement was severe enough to trigger due-process protection.

The court also held that Falls’s allegation that he did not receive advance written notice of the charges was sufficient to keep the claim alive at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court further found it plausible that his alleged inability to attend the hearings, call witnesses, or present written evidence could violate due process. Although Falls allegedly was absent because his cell window was covered and he was yelling obscenities, defendants did not address those allegations in their motion, and the court could not determine at this stage whether his conduct justified limiting his hearing rights.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim therefore remained pending for discovery. The ruling did not decide whether Falls would ultimately prove the claim. The court scheduled an initial conference for January 8, 2020.

Prior procedural history noted by the court

The opinion states that an earlier order dismissed claims against Orange County with prejudice and allowed Falls to replead only his procedural due-process claims concerning the three disciplinary hearings and 150 days of keeplock confinement. Those earlier rulings were not the disposition of the motion decided in this opinion.